Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FALMOUTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Cyprus

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking to improve the accommodation and welfare and recreational facilities for troops in Cyprus.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): A further programme of works services for the improvement of temporary camps was begun this year. When it has been completed we shall have spent a total of about £500,000 on improving kitchens, dining rooms, huts and other accommodation.
As regards welfare, there are, of course, junior ranks clubs for the majority of units; Cyprus has its own forces broadcasting service; and there are canteens, cinemas, touring entertainment parties, leave centres, and sports facilities. Inevitably, the general standard of welfare and recreation is restricted by the unrest in Cyprus and the arrival of reinforcements.

Mr. Chetwynd: As it now seems that our troops will have to stay in Cyprus for a long time and will be operating under very unpleasant and hazardous conditions, are not we really obliged to do much more than we have done so far to put these arrangements on a more permanent and better basis?

Mr. Amery: I do not think that we can prejudge the situation at this stage.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what is now the weekly cost of keeping the Army in Cyprus.

Mr. J. Amery: The extra cost of keeping the Army in Cyprus, compared with keeping it in the United Kingdom is about £70,000 a week. This includes reinforcements sent up to the end of June.

Mr. Hughes: I wanted to know the total cost, including the cost of the soldiers' pay, in this connection. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this expenditure is included in the War Office Estimates or whether there is likely to be a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a further Question on that second point, I will do my best to answer it. I was trying to be consistent. The hon. Gentleman asked a similar Question in February last year which was answered in the same way.

Captain Pilkington: Can my hon. Friend tell us what would be the cost of not keeping the Army in Cyprus?

Mr. Amery: I think it would be incalculable.

North-West District, Mixed Signals Regiment, T.A.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the discrimination by the commanding officer of the North-West District, Mixed Signals Regiment, Territorial Army, in favour of Regular personnel against Territorial Army personnel, resulting in dissatisfaction by the members of the Territorial Army; and, in view of the fact that this is liable to result in many resignations from the Territorial Army unit, if he will order an inquiry into the administration of the unit in order to investigate this matter.

Mr. J. Amery: I have found no evidence of discrimination against the Territorial Army personnel in this unit, nor have I any reason to believe that its members are dissatisfied with the way the unit is administered. One officer has resigned, but there have been fifty new volunteers in the same period.

Mrs. Braddock: Is not the Minister aware that correspondence has been going on with his Department for quite a while with reference to the difficulties in this Territorial unit? Will he reconsider the question of an inquiry into the whole administration in view of the fact that I can now present him with statements from four responsible officers, Lieut.-Colonel Arden, Lieut. Carmichael, Lieut. Fletcher and Major Griffiths, with reference to the curious things going on in this unit which, in my opinion, require full consideration and full inquiry? Is not the Minister further aware that the whole position is being undermined by the difficulties created by the discrimination between the Regulars and the Territorials?

Mr. Amery: I have investigated the whole question very carefully; but if the hon. Lady has further information to put before us, we should certainly be very glad to have it.

Royal Scots Fusiliers

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what reason for their move was recently given to the Royal Scots Fusiliers, previous to their being sent to Cyprus.

Mr. J. Amery: The battalion was sent to Cyprus for internal security duties and was so informed.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether they are still on security duties in Cyprus or whether they are now in Jordan?

Mr. Amery: They are still on security duties in Cyprus.

National Service Men, Middle East

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the Royal Scots Fusiliers, recently sent to Cyprus, were National Service men.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men have been, or are being, sent by the Army to the Middle East.

Mr. Amery: About half of the Army is composed of National Service men and this ratio applies generally in all theatres, including the Middle East. It would not be in the public interest to give precise figures.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us what maximum field training these National Service men have before they are sent to Cyprus?

Mr. Amery: They are never sent unless they have had their basic training and usually a good deal more.

Mr. Shinwell: If half the number of men in Cyprus and the Middle East are National Service men, on the assumption that these commitments continue, how will the War Office be able to do without them?

Mr. Amery: It is not for me to try to read the future.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister say whether today's Press report that further reinforcements, including National Service men, are being sent out there is correct? Is he aware of the widespread concern that men who are being conscripted to defend their own country should be sent out on an operation which endangers world peace?

Mr. Amery: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question. With regard to the second part, I think that the overwhelming majority of National Service men would bitterly resent any discrimination between them and the Regular Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Scottish Border Area

Commander Donaldson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement regarding the wireless and television services in the Scottish Border area; what improvement is contemplated; and when.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): I assume that my hon. Friend has the East Borders particularly in mind. The B.B.C. is very much aware of the difficulties which are being experienced with reception of its sound programmes and that television is not available. But the Light Programme should be satisfactorily received with efficient sets and aerials. The B.B.C. has in mind some extension of its television and V.H.F.


sound services to this area but cannot yet quote definite dates.
Secondary or fringe area reception of the I.T.A. programme from Blackhill is available in Peebles. Eventual extension to the East Borders is in mind but definite plans cannot yet be given, although a station which will serve parts of the West Borders is proposed for late 1959 or early 1960. There are a number of technical difficulties to be overcome.

Commander Donaldson: While welcoming part of my right hon. Friend's Answer, may I ask whether he is aware there has been a feeling of increasing anxiety on the borders of Scotland, in Peebles, Roxburgh and Selkirk in particular, that the same energy is not being applied by the engineers of my right hon. Friend's Department to radio and television as has been applied by his efficient executives in other branches of the Ministry?

Mr. Marples: The responsibility for the engineering service of radio and television is not with my Department but with the B.B.C., which is an independent body. It would not be prudent to establish satellite stations until the present experiments with satellite stations have really been completed and the results checked.

Central Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the Postmaster-General when he estimates that television coverage will be available for central Wales.

Mr. Marples: So far as the B.B.C. is concerned, the position is still as described in the reply by my hon. Friend on 2nd April to a Question by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). The I.T.A. cannot yet make any plans for central Wales in view of its existing commitments.

Mr. Watkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has been the result of the experimental satellite station at Folkestone? If it is found to be successful, will he give priority for a similar station in Llandrindod Wells?

Mr. Marples: The results at Folkestone are not yet known, but as soon as they are, I will consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Deliveries, Tettenhall

Mr. Simmons: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he is aware that owing to the postal address being an incorrect geographical description of areas in the area of the Tettenhall Urban District Council letters are frequently delayed considerably by being sent to Stafford or by being sent by the sorting office to the sub-sorting office at Tettenhall when addressed, Compton or The Wergs; and if he will have the sorting arrangements overhauled;
(2) if he will consider operating a central sorting office in conjunction with a Crown Post Office for Tettenhall, as failure to do so is causing a major departure from the expected standards of service to the public and resultant justified public complaint.

Mr. Marples: Correspondence which includes in the address the name of the post town, in this case, Wolverhampton, should not be delayed: I would therefore urge all the residents concerned to include the post town Wolverhampton in the postal address. A new delivery office in Wolverhampton which should be ready in about two years' time may give the opportunity for some simplification of the present arrangements and I will write to the hon. Member to give him further details.

Mr. Simmons: Does the Minister realise that there is serious delay in correspondence in this area and that Tettenhall is a town itself? It will not do him any good to dodge the issue, bearing in mind that this is a strong Tory area?

Mr. Marples: I am glad to hear that it is a strong Tory area, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that postal services are based on lines of communication, that is, the railways and road services, and the purpose of a postal address is to transmit and deliver corresspondence as quickly and efficiently as possible. Therefore, for postal purposes, the address should reflect the way in which the package should travel. It is not intended to reflect the geographical description of the area. It would help the post office a great deal if people when addressing their envelopes would bear in mind the way in which the package will travel.

Mr. Simmons: What about the Crown Post Office?

Mr. Marples: That is another Question, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

V-Bombers (Long-Distance Flights)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what long-distance flights to Commonwealth and other countries will be undertaken by V-bombers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing): Weekly training flights by single V-bombers have been made to destinations such as Malta, Kenya and Aden. Similar flights will begin shortly to Canada and the United States of America. The training programme for V-bombers also includes flights to Malaya.
In addition V-bombers have so far this year carried out special flights to the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand, British Columbia, Southern Rhodesia, Kenya, Argentina, Brazil, the Philippines, Burma and Viet Nam. Special flights are also planned to Canada and the United States of America.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would my hon. Friend confirm that most of these flights have been single flights, and will he consider sending formation flights to countries like Australia, where there is a strong American influence in all aviation matters? This could do much to obviate that and to get orders for Britain. Would he bear in mind also that the more Britain shows the flag by means of these modern aircraft, the more people will realise what this country is doing? It is as good as sending round a few old battleships and cruisers.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that probably the single training flight is the best way of getting the maximum experience for the maximum number of crews. In reply to the second part, I can think of four good reasons why we in the Air Ministry

do not under-estimate the value of these flights. The first is that they strengthen links with other air forces; the second is that they give impressive proof of our independent deterrent; the third is that I think they help the sales of British aircraft and possibly the sales of other British goods as well; and the fourth is that they give the operational crews excellent experience in operating away from their home bases.

Coastal Command Squadrons (Re-equipment)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the re-equipment programme of Coastal Command.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The re-equipment of a number of Coastal Command squadrons with the Shackleton Mark 3 is now well under way. The programme should be completed by the end of the year.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating that the main effort is on the deterrent, will my hon. Friend impress upon his right hon. Friend that it is important that we combat any possible submarine warfare? Coastal Command needs some new equipment and will he confirm that when this new equipment is ordered it will be done through British manufacturers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Shackleton can carry all the anti-submarine equipment now in service or in sight. It has a very long operational endurance of about seventeen hours, and I think that in these circumstances it would be wrong and wasteful of taxpayers' money if we ordered replacements at this stage.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the rumour that the reason no new aircraft are being ordered for Coastal Command is that the Air Ministry are prepared to wash their hands of this re-equipment because the Command may well be handed over to the Navy?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am pleased to deny that. We are extremely interested in the future of Coastal Command and want to make sure that it is composed of the most modern equipment.

Married Airmen (Allowances)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Air the total number of married airmen under the age of 21 denied the facilities for their wives, such as passage and oversea allowances and married quarters, normally available to other married airmen; and what would be the total extra cost of making these facilities generally available.

Mr.C.I.Orr-Ewing: There are at present about 1,670 married Regular airmen below the age of 21. To provide married quarters for this number of families would entail capital expenditure of the order of £4½ million. Overseas passages and allowances might cost the taxpayer about a further £500,000, depending upon the number of men serving abroad.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that a great sense of injustice is being felt because of his discrimination against married airmen under the age of 21, and can he say whether his Department has considered the handicap to recruitment that this discrimination involves? In view of this, will he reconsider removing this discrimination?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am very glad that I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's feeling that there is a widespread feeling of injustice. I should think that the general feeling in this House is that we ought not to give extra incentives and extra amenities which would persuade young people under 21 to get married early in their Service career. I would point out that the Grigg Committee investigated this and other factors of recruiting and no doubt that Report, when available, will be studied with interest in every part of the House.

St. Athan (British Empire and Commonwealth Games)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the help given by the Royal Air Force, St. Athan, to the organisers and competitors at the British Empire and Commonwealth Games.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: We are making accommodation available at R.A.F. Station St. Athan for the 1,500 competitors and officials. They also have the use of the station recreational facilities which, in addition to a gymnasium and playing fields, include an athletics track and a

swimming bath. The buildings handed over form a self-contained village.
The first parties arrived early this month and we have offered to make the accommodation available until mid-August. No rent is being charged, although the organisers of the Games are of course responsible for any extra expenditure which may be incurred.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say how glad we are to make facilities available to the Commonwealth teams and officials in this way.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As one who has had the privilege of visiting the camp, may I pay a great tribute to the Ministry and those who are responsible at St. Athan for the splendid facilities they are providing for the athletes?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I gladly accept the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. People on the spot have a wonderful opportunity of meeting Commonwealth competitors from all over the world and this very day they may have an opportunity to meet His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that competitors from abroad and Press correspondents have stated that the facilities provided, particularly in the village, have been unsurpassed in any international games in their experience?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Come to Wales.

Director of Work Study

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress in the more efficient use of manpower has been achieved in recent months as a result of recommendations made by the Director of Work Study.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: In recent months our work study resources have been deployed on a wide range of studies covering the operational, technical and administrative spheres. They include a review of technical trade groups to produce a higher degree of flexibility, and thus the fuller utilisation of time and skill. This is particularly relevant in those trades where we expect shortages when National Service ends. Other studies include experiments to improve and speed up the servicing of particular


types of aircraft; and the improvement of systems of supply. With the re-equipment and re-shaping of the Royal Air Force it is difficult to isolate manpower savings due directly to work study. The value of the work done so far is illustrated by the economies achieved for example in Air Movements and Stock Control Sections, and at an important Signals Centre. All these examples may be capable of wider application.

Mr. de Freitas: While welcoming any recommendations from this Director which have resulted in manpower economies, may I ask whether the Under-Secretary of State is satisfied that the setting up of this directorate has not caused other senior officers and heads of departments to feel that the saving of manpower is not one of their primary responsibilities in their own departments?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The establishment committees go on with their normal work of trying to prune the establishments and to make sure that everyone is essential. That is quite outside the terms of reference of the Work Study Group.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Level Crossing (Lincoln—Skegness Road)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to relieve the congestion of traffic caused by the antiquated level crossing arrangements at Burgh Station on the main Lincoln—Skegness road.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The elimination of this level crossing by the building of a bridge will be carried out when funds permit.

Commander Maitland: It is a long time since I asked about this matter, but does my hon. Friend realise that I was then given the same Answer? Time will not permit very much longer waiting. This road is the main road from the Midlands to Skegness, but one man has to keep popping in and out of his box to

open the level crossing. Sometimes hundreds of cars are kept waiting there at the weekend.

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that this improvement will have to wait its turn. There are many other roads which are even more important. What I can say, and it may help my hon. and gallant Friend, is that I will ask the British Transport Commission if it will consider putting at this crossing one of its new lifting barriers to see whether that can speed up the use of the crossing.

Park Lane Improvement Scheme

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consult with the Minister of Works with a view to a model of the Park Lane Improvement Scheme being displayed at a suitable spot in Hyde Park so that the public can be informed about the objects of the scheme.

Mr. Nugent: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I think we can best meet the point by displaying a pictorial plan of the scheme outside the entrances of the park at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, and we are consulting the authorities concerned with this in view.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Have it floodlit too.

Motorways (Traffic Regulation)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals he has in mind for regulating traffic on the new motorways, in view of the expected opening of the Preston By-pass in the autumn; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I laid before Parliament yesterday two Statutory Instruments, one varying the classes of traffic authorised to use the motorway, the other varying for special roads the speed limits applicable to certain classes of vehicles. We have no experience of motorways in this country, and these Orders must therefore be somewhat experimental. Both have been set to expire in a year's time, to ensure full consideration of our experience on the Preston By-pass before the first long motorway, from London to Birmingham, comes into use next autumn. I also propose to promulgate other regulations and a code of conduct dealing


with behaviour when driving on motorways.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT full details of these proposals.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for tabling these Regulations in good time before the opening of the Preston motorway, may I ask if he is aware that there is a certain amount of concern that heavy abnormal indivisable loads are to be banned from these motorways and left to go on the old roads? Will he consider that?

Mr. Watkinson: Motorways are made to speed up traffic and I think it at least arguable that if we filled them with enormous indivisible loads they might not fulfil their purposes. What I should like to make plain to the House is, as I said in my Answer, that we have had no experience with this kind of road in this country. I do not think we can necessarily say that what happens in America or anywhere else is a fair yardstick to apply here. I think we had better try these experiments, including the one affecting indivisible loads, and see how we get on.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these Regulations will be subject to negative or affirmative procedure and whether they will be debatable before they are put into force?

Mr. Watkinson: They will be subject to an affirmative Resolution and therefore debatable, and I have specifically made them to run out in a year's time, so they are purely experimental.

Following are the details:

PROPOSALS FOR REGULATING TRAFFIC ON MOTORWAYS

(Note: As both the Order varying the classes of traffic and the Regulations varying the speed limit on special roads are framed to expire on August 1st, 1959, the following proposals will in effect apply only to the Preston By-Pass.)

1. Classes of Vehicles Permitted on Special Roads
The Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1958, if approved, will vary the classes of traffic set out as Class I and Class II in the Second Schedule to the Special Roads Act, 1949, by excluding from those classes—

(i) motor cycles of less than 50 c.c. capacity,
(ii) vehicles chargeable with duty under section 4 (2) (a) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act. 1949, as amended by section 13 of the

Finance Act, 1950, i.e. vehicular agricultural machinery,
(iii) vehicles used for the transport of abnormal indivisible loads except vehicles constructed for naval, military, air force or other defence purposes, the use of which is authorised by an Order under paragraph (b) of the proviso to section 3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Accordingly, where (as in the case of the Preston By-Pass) the Scheme under which a motorway is provided has specified Class I or Class II as the classes of traffic which may use the motorway, the only vehicles which will be permitted on the motorway will be those comprised in those classes as varied by this Order subject to such exceptions as may be permitted by the Regulations referred to below.

2. Speed Limits
Under the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1958, if approved, motor vehicles drawing a trailer (not being articulated vehicles), if the trailer has less than four wheels or is a close-coupled four-wheeled trailer, will be subject to a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. With this exception no speed limit applicable generally to any class of vehicle will apply on motorways.

3. Conduct of Drivers on Motorways
Regulations will be made under section 12 of the Special Roads Act, 1949, to cover the following matters:—

(a) The prohibition of stopping on the driving surface or carriageway of a motorway (as distinct from its "hard shoulder") except in the case of force majeure, to avoid collision, when ordered or signalled by the police, or in obedience to a legal traffic sign.
(b) The authorisation of stopping on the "hard shoulder" only in the event of emergency distress or breakdown, and then only for the minimum period necessary (provision will eventually be made for parking or waiting at service areas and possibly subject to any necessary time limits and to rules preventing misuse of the areas, but there are no service areas or lay-bys on the Preston By-Pass).
(c) The prohibition of crossing, parking, or driving on the central reservation.
(d) The provision of exemptions from (a), (b), and (c), in the case of emergency and maintenance services by police, ambulance and fire services, motoring organisation patrols, breakdown or cleaning vehicles and those used for improvement or construction of the road or its bridges, or removal of obstructions, etc.
(e) A provision that each carriageway may only be used in one direction, except in obedience to orders or signals of the police or to a legal traffic sign.
(f) The prohibition of parking or waiting on the approach roads to the motorway except in the event of emergency, distress or breakdown and then only for the minimum period necessary.

4. Pedestrians, etc.
Pedestrians are not authorised to use a motorway unless the Scheme under which the motorway is provided specifies them as a class of traffic which may use the motorway. It is proposed to make regulations controlling the movement of drivers and passengers of vehicles who are for any reason on foot on a motorway.

5. Motorway Code
A motorway code will be prepared which will contain guidance to drivers who use these new roads; it will be designed to emphasise the differences between driving on a motorway and on an ordinary road. The code will prescribe the principles of safe driving on roads designed for high speeds, and will stress the special danger of fatigue and drowsiness in such circumstances. Prominence will be given to the importance of observing lane discipline and of giving long advance warning when joining or leaving a motorway. Advice will be given on the correct method of approaching a motorway and with regard to safe movement from one traffic lane to another. Other matters which will be covered in the code will include advice on driving at speed after dark and full particulars of the traffic signs which will be used.

Road Intersections (Stationary Vehicles)

Mr. Batsford: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consider amending the traffic Regulations to prohibit vehicles stopping on road intersections.

Mr. Watkinson: As my hon. Friend will realise, there are difficulties in dealing with this matter by Regulation. I will, however, consider whether other means can usefully be taken to deal with the problem.

Mr. Batsford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the blocking of traffic intersections by stationary vehicles considerably impedes the flow of traffic in urban areas?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I do The only difficulty is that probably the solution implies that people who see a green traffic light will not have to move forward so that they block the intersection. It is a difficult situation and I will look at it again.

Severn Bridge Project

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now able to sanction the Severn Bridge project; and if he will state the conditions which will govern the project, and the starting date.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 16th July last to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather).

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Minister aware that the Answer he gave last week was rather ambiguous, and that in South Wales and the West Country there is still apprehension? Can he say when he is to give local authorities power to commence the approach roads and if he is to invite tenders for the contracts?

Mr. Watkinson: I think there is a further Question on that subject to be answered later, but I should like to clear up any misconception. I can tell the right hon. Member that the announcement made last week means that the Severn Bridge is now firmly in our programme and will follow the construction of the Forth crossing.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Am I to understand that when the underwater work is finished at the Firth of Forth, the contractors and workmen will be transferred to the Severn? Is that the idea of the Minister in phasing the programme?

Mr. Watkinson: I am advised on the highest technical grounds that the most economical way of constructing both these bridges—which, as the right hon. Member knows, are almost identical—is that construction of one should follow the other and I think his assumptions are in general correct.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he proposes to invite tenders for the construction of the Severn Bridge.

Mr. Watkinson: Because of the need to phase the Severn Bridge with the Forth Bridge, it is not yet possible to give a precise date, but it will be about six months before the start of the constructional work.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the Minister excused himself earlier from answering some of my supplementary questions, will he now indicate whether or not he is prepared to allow county authorities to proceed with approach roads? May I also say that there is widespread appreciation in the West Country, and in South Wales, at the fact that, at last, he has put the Severn Bridge project firmly in his road programme?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that the Severn Bridge is a very necessary project, and I hope and believe that it will bring great economic benefits to that part of the world. As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that my local representatives will already be in discussion about the approach roads but, if they are not, I shall see that they very soon start.

Parking Meters (Charges)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact that the present scale of charges for parking meters, whilst it may be suitable for motorists visiting the central area of London for shopping and pleasure, is ill adapted to the essential requirements of professional persons such as doctors and business men, who may be unavoidably detained with their patients or clients for more than two hours, he will give consideration to a scheme by which such persons may, by payment of an additiontl annual amount in respect of the licence charge for their cars, be given somewhat improved facilities in parking meter areas.

Mr. Nugent: The charges that may be made for vehicles left in a parking place designated under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, are governed by Section 20 of that Act. The Act makes no provision for any form of annual payment such as that suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If parking meters are to be extended over a wide area of London, will my hon. Friend bear this in mind as a useful possible scheme to meet the needs of business men and commercial travellers?

Mr. Nugent: I think I have made plain to my hon. Friend that in order to do what he requires Parliament would need to pass fresh legislation.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulty which will arise when a motorist has put 6d. in a meter in order to leave his car for a certain length of time, but after that time cannot put in another 6d.? He has to decide at the beginning to pay for one hour or two hours' parking. Surely it would be reasonable to allow the motorist to put in the second 6d. so that if he decides to leave his car for two hours he can do so?

Mr. Nugent: I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member. The difficulty is that feeding-in, as a general procedure, is illegal. If we made it legal, it would enable anyone to leave a car by a parking meter and return every hour or two hours to put in further coins. To allow that concession would make the enforcement of the feeding-in provision in-operable, and I am afraid we cannot make the concession.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend say if any preparations are now in hand for making sure that the money obtained, as decided by Parliament, when available will be immediately put in use for providing off-street parking?

Mr. Nugent: Parliament has provided that funds from this source shall go to that purpose.

Bus Stops, London

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why omnibus stops in the London area are located within areas covered by areas forbidding loading and unloading.

Mr. Nugent: Bans on loading and unloading in London do not apply to the picking up or setting down of passengers and so do not directly affect the siting of bus stops. If my hon. Friend considers any bus stops in such areas could be better sited, I will be glad to have the matter investigated.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Having decided that it is necessary to have parking restriction signs, which define the "No Waiting" periods, and then having found that at certain busy intersections it was necessary to superimpose on these the "No Loading or Unloading" signs, and having put a great red ball on top in order to impress us with it, is not it absolute nonsense to have both the biggest and the most numerous vehicles, which cause the greatest amount of obstruction at these intersections, loading and unloading, whether goods or persons, at the most crowded spots?

Mr. Nugent: If my hon. Friend reads my Answer in HANSARD, he will see that I have already told him that bus stops do not come within the prohibition. If he thinks that any bus stop is wrongly sited, I shall be very glad to have a look at it.

Vehicles and Loads (Width)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the permitted maximum width of vehicles and vehicle loads allowed on the roads under the jurisdiction of his Department.

Mr. Nugent: As the Answer is lengthy and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the good work that he and his Department have done, and are doing, in road improvement, is nullified by the excessive loads permitted on single vehicles? Could not they be routed by sea, or rail, or even by road at night?

Mr. Nugent: Of course, the vehicles have to get to the sea, and have to use the roads to do so. As far as possible, we advise that they should go by sea or rail if they can but, unfortunately, they have on occasion to use the roads and, as far as possible, they are routed at times that cause the minimum inconvenience.

Following is the information:

A. Motor vehicles and trailers in general use on the roads
The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, prescribe the following limits of overall width:—

Vehicles
Locomotives (i.e. heavy tractors)—9 ft.
Public service vehicles—8 ft.
Heavy motor cars which are goods vehicles of 4 tons unladen weight upwards, and trailers drawn by them; and road sweepers—8 ft.
Other heavy motor cars, motor cars, and trailers (with certain exceptions) and motor tractors—7 ft. 6 ins.
Invalid carriages—7ft. 2 ins.

Loads
The load carried on a vehicle must not—

(a) overhang sideways mote than 1 ft. beyond the overall width of the vehicle, or
(b) have a total lateral width of more than 9 ft. 6 ins.;

unless the load consists of loose agricultural produce, not baled or crated, or is an indivisible load of the movement of which two days' notice has been given to the police.

B. Special type vehicles
The use of certain special types of motor vehicles and trailers (the most important being certain agricultural vehicles, engineering plant and vehicles carrying abnormal indivisible loads) is authorised by the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order, 1955, although their dimensions and those of their loads exceed those permitted under the Construction and Use Regulations.

Programme

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now able to announce the roads programme to be undertaken on the completion of the present four-year programme.

Mr. Watkinson: Preparatory work for the extension of the road programme is going ahead. I propose to stick to my policy of giving priority to getting work in hand rather than to announcing detailed plans a long way ahead.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the Minister fully appreciate the necessity of announcing his programme as soon as possible in order that the present tempo of the road programme can be maintained? If adequate preliminary work is not done, there will unquestionably be a slowing down of the present programme, and it is most desirable that the present capital equipment should continue to be employed.

Mr. Watkinson: I quite accept that. We will, of course, have to step up to the planned level of spending of £60 million on new road construction. We have not yet attained that level, although we shall do so. I agree that quite a lot of the preliminary work has to go on, and it is to go on.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Ought not the roads programme to be announced on what is called a moving total basis; that is to say, at a particular period of each year, to announce the programme for the next succeeding four years?

Mr. Watkinson: If my hon. Friend really means that he wants us to issue enormous lists of schemes years ahead, which may or may not be carried out when it is said that they will be, I am frankly opposed to that. Our job is to build roads, and not to worry about hypothetical schemes in the future. The preparatory work is going on, and the building work is going on at a faster rate than ever before, and I think that, on the whole, we are not making bad progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

London-Moscow (Service)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the proposed London-Moscow, and return, air service will come into operation.

Mr. Watkinson: Final arrangements for the introduction of this service cannot be made until I hear further from the Soviet authorities. I am awaiting their reply about the progress they have made with the silencing of the TU.104 aircraft which Aeroflot proposes to use on the route.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister aware that the Belgians have beaten us and started, on 2nd June, a Brussels—Moscow service with connections to London? It looks as though K.L.M. and Air France are going ahead of us. How is it that they are able to do this while we, after five months, have not been able successfully to prosecute our inquiries in Russia? If world airlines are to use jets, must not we make up our minds quickly about what we are going to do?

Mr. Watkinson: I am answering a later Question on the broader issue and I think I should reserve my answer on that issue till then. On the specific question, the position is this, and not as reported in some quarters. We have put a perfectly reasonable request to Aeroflot. When I personally met Marshal Zhigaryev when he was over here, he said that he saw no difficulty in silencing this aircraft. If there was no difficulty I should be glad to have an answer from the Soviets.

Mr. Beswick: I am in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts to get agreement about this matter, on which we have a Question on the Paper. Does the Minister think that he could do nothing more than just send a letter to the Minister there? Could not he consider following it up and having another personal discussion? It would be a pity if the service did not come about.

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. I would make it plain that I am most anxious that this service should start. We have made most pressing inquiries through the proper channels to get an answer. I can only hope that the answer will come quickly. Nobody is more anxious than I am to start this service.

Southern Italy—Athens (Air Route)

Mr. N. Nicolson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the recent discussions at the International

Civil Aviation Organisation have resulted in the realigning of the civil air-routes between southern Italy and Athens so as to reduce the risk that aircraft will accidentally cross the Albanian coast-line.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): The risk arises only on the more northerly of the routes concerned. I understand that the Greek civil aviation authorities, within whose jurisdiction the relevant section of this route lies, plan a realignment, the effect of which will be to take the route further from Albanian territory.

Mr. Nicolson: Does my hon. Friend recall the incident earlier this year when a British "Skymaster", owing to a minute navigational error, overflew Albanian territory and was forced down by Albanian fighters? Does not my hon. Friend think that urgent action is required in order to re-align the route? Am I to understand from his Answer that it is a matter not for the International Civil Aviation Organisation but for the Greek airway authorities?

Mr. Neave: I am glad to say that there has been no further incident of the kind that my hon. Friend described. The position is that the Greeks intend to install a new beacon on the opposite end of Kerkyra Island, to realign the route. In addition to that, my right hon. Friend has written to our airways Corporations, a number of independent operators and other organisations, asking them to take particular care to avoid flying over Albanian territory or Albanian territorial waters.

R34 (Proposed Memorial)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will arrange for an inspection by interested Members of Parliament of the proposed R34 memorial design, prior to the intended erection at London Airport.

Mr. Neave: The model of the proposed memorial belongs to the Air League of the British Empire. I understand that it is on view to the public at the Sabin Galleries in Cork Street.

Mr. Beswick: In that case, presumably Members of Parliament, like others, can go along to see it. As many people think this design cannot possibly be as strange


as it looks in a photograph, I hope they will accept the suggestion. As we do not want a lot of controversy about this memorial, may I ask whether it has the blessing of the Ministry and the Minister?

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend does not wish to set himself up as a critic of modern sculpture. He took the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission on this matter and the memorial was designed at the request of the Air League, which is paying for it and whose choice it was.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does this mean that we are always to be saddled at London Airport with this horrible two-headed bat, forever and ever?

Aircraft Noise

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what discussions he had, during his visit to the United States of America, with regard to international agreement on the control of aircraft noise; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has for a unified policy on aircraft noise among airport authorities.

Mr. Watkinson: I have had a most useful exchange of views with the Port of New York Authority following discussions in London among representatives of the Western European airport authorities. It seems to be generally accepted, on the basis of information so far available, that unless there is further progress in engine silencing the operations of large jet aircraft at airports in built-up areas will have to be somewhat restricted if they are not to cause considerable disturbance.
The restrictions, which will vary from place to place, are now being studied by the authorities responsible for the major airports, who have undertaken to keep each other closely informed.

Mr. Beswick: While thanking the Minister for that reply, and for the interest and initiative which he has shown in this important matter, may I ask him if he is aware that none of us wants to see London Airport by-passed, or a British Minister taking a responsible attitude and then finding that other countries

are under-cutting us? What steps is the Minister taking to get some real international agreement in this matter? Has he considered calling an international conference, or suggesting that the International Civil Aviation Conference should convene one at which these international arrangements could be expedited?

Mr. Watkinson: In fact, we have quite a workable agreement and it is that these jets will be tried at each airport. For example, we have had experience of the T.U.104 at London Airport, and, while I was in America, I issued a very warm invitation to American operators to bring the Boeing 707 to London as soon as possible and test it under actual conditions. Generally, what we have agreed to do is to try out the aircraft in normal passenger operating conditions at the airports concerned in order that each authority can say what it feels is the minimum—and I want to underline that, the minimum—restriction that will protect the interests of people living round the airport.

United Kingdom—Ghana (Traffic Rights)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what United Kingdom traffic rights have now been granted to the new Ghana Airways Company; and to what extent it is his policy to share the United Kingdom percentage of traffic to Ghana between more than one British operator.

Mr. Watkinson: Pending the conclusion of a formal Air Services Agreement with Ghana, a temporary permit has been granted for Ghana Airways to operate to London via Algiers and Barcelona. Hunting Clan Air Transport and Airwork Ltd. will continue to provide a service between London and Accra via Lisbon, Las Palmas, Bathurst and Freetown.

Mr. Beswick: May I now ask the Minister to be good enough to answer the second part of the Question, in so far as it relates to his policy? As he knows, his policy previously was to allow the two independent companies to go direct to Ghana. Having now to share the traffic between the United Kingdom and Ghana, does he still intend to share the United Kingdom element between B.O.A.C., as the national instrument, and the independent companies? If that is his intention,


does not he think that he is penalising the Corporation?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that that is not quite correct, because these are two quite different routes, two different ways to the same place, which pick up different classes of passengers. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what my policy is, I shall be glad to tell him. It is to try to give a fair share of this air traffic business both to the independents and to the Corporation.

Mr. Beswick: Would not he, therefore, agree that the English chosen instrument, B.O.A.C., will be the only national instrument operating from Europe that has to share the traffic down to Ghana with other companies of its own nationality? Does not he think that that is penalising the Corporation?

Mr. Watkinson: No. I do not, because, as I said the other day, it is a reasonably competitive world in air transport, and I am sure that the Corporation is prepared to face a certain amount of competition.

Prestwick (Extended Runway)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now state the daily average number of vehicles of all types which cross the extended part of the runway at Prestwick airport on A.77.

Mr. Neave: The average number of vehicles, including bicycles, crossing the runway during nine days of this month was 14,133.

Mr. Rankin: Is not that an enormously greater number than was anticipated, amounting, as it does, to about 600 vehicles per hour day and night? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it reinforces our claim for putting that traffic underground, because of the increasing number of aircraft movements at Prestwick? In view of the possible diversion of the A.77 road, could the hon. Gentleman discover how much of that traffic is proceeding beyond the town of Ayr?

Mr. Neave: I quite agree that we must make an early decision on this question of a tunnel under the runway, and we shall certainly do so. We have not any accurate figures at the moment, but we

know that the traffic is substantial. It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently published his intention to make an Order prescribing the line of a new trunk road.

Sir T. Moore: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that all local people of intelligence who use this road feel that the tunnel alternative is really the only one conceivable for that part of the world?

Mr. Neave: I have always said that I am well aware of the strong feeling there is about the tunnel, but it will be very expensive, as I have said.

Mr. Rankin: Never mind about the money.

Mr. Woodburn: If this is a continuance of the Government's programme for Prestwick to be the second airport of Britain, is not it desirable that there should be a comprehensive programme, planned for some considerable time ahead, so that any changes now made will fit in with the eventual pattern of Prestwick Airport?

Mr. Neave: We have, of course, a comprehensive programme for Prestwick, and this question of a tunnel is a point that is under active consideration at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Learner Drivers

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consider making it an offence for a learner driver to carry other passengers in addition to his instructor.

Mr. Nugent: I do not think that this restriction would be justified.

Mr. Dance: When one drives at the weekend one frequently sees cars bearing "L" plates and containing ma, pa and the baby, who are being carried along. Does not my hon. Friend think that that is distracting to the driver and causes unnecessary exposure to danger?

Mr. Nugent: There may be some distraction in having ma, pa and the baby in the car, but it would be very onerous to put on the restriction for which my hon. Friend asks.

Motor Cars ("L" Plates)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he has taken to publicise the regulations concerning the display of L plates on motor cars.

Mr. Nugent: A notice is issued to everyone who takes out a provisional driving licence for the first time and a note is printed on the cover of the driving licence itself.

Mr. Dance: Is it within the law for an instructor to drive a car exhibiting "L" plates? When he stops teaching and the learner gives up driving, ought not the "L" plates be turned round or removed?

Mr. Nugent: I do not think so.

Mr. Lipton: Is not it a fact that many drivers who have passed the test continue to exhibit the "L" plates so that other drivers will give their car a wide berth?

Mr. Nugent: I think that may happen, when, for example, a son or daughter is in the process of learning to drive. The "L" plates are sometimes left on for them.

Vehicle Inspection

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects the scheme for the inspection of road vehicles to start operating.

Mr. Watkinson: About the end of this year. Legal difficulties have arisen over the free retest referred to in the White Paper, but I hope these can be overcome with the co-operation of all concerned.

Mr. Strauss: Can we really be certain now that this scheme will start towards the end of this year, which will be two and a half years after the Bill became an Act? Meanwhile, many lives which could be saved are being lost.

Mr. Watkinson: I quite accept the view of the right hon. Member that we ought to get on with this as quickly as we can, but there have been great difficulties. I am anxious in particular to help the man who repairs the car himself and brings it back for another test. That has brought to light some rather tricky difficulties. I hope they will be overcome.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the gravity of the situation, may we be assured that there is no legal difficulty of the sort

described by the right hon. Gentleman which will hold up the initiation of the scheme beyond the end of this year?

Mr. Watkinson: I certainly hope not. The right hon. Member might like to know that we are going ahead with the inspection of the garages and all the necessary work.

Port Charges

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that further industrial expansion in South Wales, together with the completion of power stations, factories and other industrial undertakings, must further deplete the surplus of Welsh coal available for export through the South Wales ports; if he will therefore give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to place all ports in the United Kingdom on the same footing in the matter of all charges within its control; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: Industrial expansion in South Wales is producing alternative traffics for the ports. It would be inappropriate for us to give the suggested direction; the Commission settles economic rates for the use of its own ports, and for the movement of goods by rail to and from all ports, within the limits prescribed by the Transport Tribunal. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was informed on 11th June, British Railways is ready to receive sympathetically any request from traders for an economic rate for goods shipped regularly through South Wales ports.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that information I have obtained from the National Coal Board and from the Central Electricity Authority indicates that in the next few years there is bound to be a further drop in the ship export of coal from these ports? In view of the seriousness of that news to Cardiff, and Barry in particular, in conjunction with the British Transport Commission will my hon. Friend treat this as a special emergency, requiring emergency treatment?

Mr. Nugent: If my hon. Friend has any special suggestions or proposals to make with regard to the rates in these ports, I shall be very glad to send them to the Commission.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May we take it that the Minister and the Ministry recognise the services which these ports have rendered to the export trade and also the changing pattern of the export trade, which requires that these ports should be on an equal footing with other ports in the country?

Mr. Nugent: We certainly recognise the importance of these ports. That is why we are building improved roads from the Midlands cities down to these ports and want to see them used to the very maximum.

Road Traffic Acts (Enforcement Officers)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many officers have been recruited for enforcement work in connection with the Road and Rail Traffic Acts since an increase in their number was decided upon; what is the total number now engaged on such work; and how far short it falls of full establishment.

Mr. Nugent: The number of staff permanently assigned to enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts has been increased from 63 in 1956 to 95 at the present time. By September, I hope there will be a full complement of 100 examiners in post. In addition, the number of driving and traffic examiners is being increased by a competition now in progress, and we expect that from the end of this year we can release an average of about 50 of these examiners from driving tests to help on enforcement work.

Mr. Ernest Davies: While I am grateful for the increase, at long last, in the number of enforcement officers, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that only last week the Metropolitan licensing authority, in revoking two licences, stated that unless this breaking of the law, which was considerably on the increase, came to an end, it would be necessary to take further steps against it? In other words, is not there evidence from the licensing authorities of widespread infringement of the statutory Regulations?

Mr. Nugent: I have never contended that there is not infringement. There is infringement, and that is why we have a system of enforcement. I welcome the authority responsible for enforcement imposing more stringent punishment, where it thinks it necessary, to have a deterrent effect.

Victoria Line Tube

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what conclusion he has now reached in regard to the construction and financing of the projected Victoria line tube.

Mr. Watkinson: It has not yet been possible to allocate to this project any of the capital available to the Commission. The line would be costly to construct, and has no prospect of paying its way. It would, however, make a valuable contribution to London travel, and I intend to keep the project under review with the Commission with the object of including it in the Commission's programme as soon as resources permit.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the experience during the bus strike, when the Underground was used to far greater capacity and thereby relieved surface traffic considerably, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the construction of this tube would bring very considerable relief to traffic congestion in London; and that, therefore, it deserves to be given the utmost possible priority, in spite of the heavy cost, because, in the long run, it would probably be worth while?

Mr. Watkinson: As I have said, I am certainly anxious to keep it under review, because I do know of its traffic importance.

Mr. Strauss: The Minister says that he will examine the project, and keep it under review in the hope of allowing it to proceed as soon as resources permit. Does not that depend entirely on the decision of the Government?

Mr. Watkinson: The position is that the British Transport Commission has a very large capital investment programme, and we have only recently accelerated that portion of it which appears to bring the quickest and most profitable return. This scheme, unfortunately does nothing but increase the Commission's loss.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Unremunerative Services

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now discussed with the Chairmen


of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees the British Transport Commission's proposal to withdraw unremunerative rail services from more than thirty lines; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: I met the Chairmen on 24th June and informed them that the Government intended to support strongly the British Transport Commission's plans for eliminating from the railway system those services which are hopelessly uneconomic in modern transport conditions. The railways are no longer a monopolistic organisation with an obligation to provide all sections of the community with a railway service.
The Consultative Committees, when considering proposed withdrawals, will continue to give full opportunity to local interests to express their views, and in making their recommendations will continue to take into account the existence of alternative services or the need for them. The Commission is under no obligation to provide an alternative service. Sir Brian Robertson has, nevertheless, assured me that it is willing to co-operate fully with the Committees in exploring how the needs of the public affected by withdrawals can best be met.

Mr. Wilson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and not wishing to do anything to obstruct the railways in removing uneconomic services, may I ask the Minister if he will bear in mind that certain problems may arise in rural areas in connection with rural bus services?

Mr. Watkinson: I am only too conscious of the problems of the rural areas, and I had a very useful discussion with all the Chairmen of the Consultative Committees recently. I am sure that they too are fully aware of the problem. On the other hand, the British Transport Commission has to try to get its finances in order, and therefore we must not stand unduly in its way in cutting its costs.

Mr. Ernest Davies: While accepting that, may I ask whether the Minister fully appreciates that there are other standards besides that of making the railways pay, and that it is necessary to maintain a public service? As certain railway services are operated very profitably, must not these be used in order to keep running

services in areas where there are no other adequate transport facilities? Is not it necessary to maintain a public service?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, the British Transport Commission does not advocate removing services in cases where there is some eventual hope of their paying, or providing necessary feeder services to other parts of the railways. What I am not prepared to ask the Commission to do, and I should make this quite plain to the House, is to keep on wholly uneconomic services without any regard to its financial position.

Mr. Strauss: On that point, may I ask the Minister whether there are not other public services, such as London Transport and the Post Office, which, in the national interests, run services which are not remunerative? Should not the British Transport Commission do exactly the same thing, and keep railways going where there is no alternative transport? Does not the same principle of public service apply?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Consultative Committees are produced by Act of Parliament and rest upon an Act of Parliament, which lays upon them the duty of seeing that, as far as possible, where, for example, branch lines are closed, alternative services are provided. I am quite sure that they will continue to carry out that task, and there may well be ways of doing it; but I must make it plain that the Commission has to get its finances in order. The Commission is being very heavily subsidised by the taxpayer at the present moment, and I think the House should help and not hinder it.

Lewisham Accident Inquiry (Report)

Mr. MacDermot: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the growing public concern at the delay in publishing the report of the inquiry into the Lewisham train crash on 4th December, 1957; and whether he will now state when the report may be expected.

Mr. Nugent: The Report of the inquiry into the St. Johns, Lewisham, railway accident will be published tomorrow.

Mr. MacDermot: While welcoming that announcement, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can explain to the House why there has been such an inordinate delay in publishing the Report, particularly after the court proceedings arising out of the crash had been completed? Secondly, can he confirm that the report reveals no defects in the system as a contributory cause of this accident?

Mr. Nugent: I think I had better leave the hon. Member and everyone interested to read the Report and draw their conclusions after they have read it. With regard to the delay, there were complicating factors; amongst others, the criminal prosecution of the driver, and the fact that our Chief Inspecting Officer died and further evidence had to be taken. I can assure the House that no time was lost in producing the two Reports, which will come out together, and which were complicated and difficult Reports. I think that when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen read them, they will realise that the time has been well used.

Northampton-Peterborough Branch Line

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will direct the appropriate Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee to consider the proposal of British Railways to close the branch line from Northampton to Peterborough to passenger traffic.

Mr. Watkinson: I am informed that no such proposal has been made.

Mr. Paget: Do I understand that there is no proposal to close this branch line passenger service?

Mr. Watkinson: That is so.

Mr. Paget: That news will be received with great relief in Northampton.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

s.s. "Narva" (Inquiry)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now state whether a date has been fixed for the holding of a public inquiry into the loss with all hands of the s.s. "Narva".

Mr. Neave: The formal investigation will open on 12th November, 1958, in Glasgow.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

52. Mr. COLLINS: To ask the Minister of Defence if he is aware that there are still more than 8,000 deserters from the three services; and whether he will again consider the granting of an amnesty.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Collins.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask Question No. 51?

Mr. Speaker: That Question has been answered with Question No. 38.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Am I not entitled to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had a chance when Question No. 38 was answered, but he did not take it.

Mr. Collins: Question No. 52, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I have had to deal with a point of order, and the time for Questions has now passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Maclay.]

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I submit to the House that we ought not to accept this Motion. The Amendments that we are asked to consider are in the main, Amendments which could not have been made to the Bill when it was before the House of Commons, and in those circumstances I submit that it would be wrong for us to set about making those Amendments now, or to consider whether we should make those Amendments which have come from another place.
Some of us think that the Government, including the Secretary of State, have been guilty of sharp practice in this matter. The Secretary of State has known ever since the Bill was introduced into the House that he would endeavour at some point to alter the provisions in the Bill relating to local government administration, but he so restricted the Long Title of the Bill that he could not propose any such Amendments when the Bill was before this House.
The Opposition in the House of Commons was equally restricted in the Amendments which they could propose to the Bill, so that we in the House of Commons were not enabled to make any submissions at all for the consideration of Parliament about changes in local government administration in Scotland. But after the Bill left this place and went to another place the Secretary of State then took advantage of the absence of rules in another place to move a great many Amendments which he could not have moved in this House. They went through the other place with the minimum of discussion. The Secretary of State will not deny that his Amendments were not considered in another place. They were approved, but they were certainly not discussed. If they were considered, they were considered

outside the Chamber. They were not discussed within the Chamber.
In any case, we have the position that the Secretary of State took advantage of the absence of rules in another place to submit a long list of Amendments dealing with the administration of local government in Scotland which, not surprisingly, were accepted in another place; and now we find in the list of Lords Amendments before us this afternoon what is virtually a new Bill, an additional Bill proposed to be woven into the Bill that we sent from this House to another place some weeks ago.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been unable to discuss with their local authorities whether these Amendments are acceptable to the local authorities or not. The Secretary of State forecast his proposals to be incorporated in the Bill in a White Paper that he published only last month. The White Paper put before hon. Members the recommendations of a working party, the identity of which has not been disclosed and the report of which has not been made available to hon. Members. We are asked to take the word of the Secretary of State that what he put forward in the White Paper is what was recommended to him by the working party.
Since those recommendations were made in the White Paper and were later incorporated in Parliamentary form for consideration in another place, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been unable to discuss the reactions of their local authorities to those proposed changes. No one can deny that. In any case, the local authorities within the various constituencies have suggestions that they would like to make about local government administration. Hon. Members on this side of the House, and I dare say on the Government benches, too, would like to make some suggestions for improvements in local government administration. They have not been allowed to do it within the context of this Bill. All we can do now is to consider the Amendments which have come from another place, having been sent to that place by the Secretary of State.
It is not as if some noble Lords in another place had an idea that it would be a good thing to alter the law relating to local government administration in Scotland and had carried Amendments against the wishes of the Secretary of


State. That is not the position. The position is that the Secretary of State took advantage of the absence of rules along the corridor and he put the Amendments before another place.
In all the circumstances, it seems to me that the decent thing to do now would be for the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with the Lords Amendments. We should, of course, have to join in reporting to another place why we could not consider their Amendments. The decent thing to do, in any case, would be to take away the Lords Amendments and bring forward another Bill in the autumn when we should be able to give adequate consideration to the proposals that are contained in those Amendments. We would be able further to consider the many suggestions for alterations in local government administration that will come from individual local authorities in Scotland and from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I beg of the Government not to proceed with the consideration of the Lords Amendments this afternoon.

3.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will not expect me to agree with him either in his conclusions at the end of his speech, or in some of the phrases which he used. I do not accept that there has been sharp practice, or that we took advantage of lack of rules; I do not accept that this is virtually a new Bill, and I will explain carefully my reasons for saying so.
I think it is wise to look at the Amendments rather carefully. They fall into three groups. There are purely drafting Amendments; there are Amendments dealing with salmon net fishings, and there are Amendments to give effect to proposals to relax requirements in local government administration.
I do not think that anyone will disagree with the drafting Amendments. I do not think they can be objected to on principle, and they do not change the character of the Bill. The Amendments dealing with salmon net fishings were not moved into the Bill by the Government, although the Government accept responsibility for them. They relate to a matter which was raised in the Scottish

Standing Committee when the Joint Under-Secretary promised further consideration. In the expanded form in which they were moved in another place, the salmon net fishing Amendments appeared to the Government to be free of the principal objection which they felt to the Amendments moved in the Commons. Whether the Government were justified in that view is a legitimate subject for debate later this afternoon, but it cannot be said that these Amendments are not within the scope of the Bill.
The biggest group relates to the Government Amendments which seek to relax requirements in local government administration. I have no need to apologise for introducing these Amendments into the Bill at this stage. They are entirely germane to the main object of the Bill as it was first introduced. It was made clear, at the outset, that as part of the policy of giving local authorities increased independence the introduction of the new financial arrangements would be accompanied by a review of administrative procedure. This was carried out by the working party, to which reference has been made, of local government and Departmental officials.
On Third Reading in the House of Commons my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said that the working party's recommendations had been accepted by the local authority associations and that a White Paper would be published explaining them. My hon. Friend went on to say that in so far as these proposals could not be put into effect without legislation, suitable Amendments to the Bill would be tabled in another place and the House would have an opportunity of considering these Amendments later. That was made clear on Third Reading.
The White Paper, which was published a month ago, also stated, in paragraph 3, that suitable Amendments to the Bill would be tabled for the purpose of bringing the new administrative arrangements into force at the same time as the introduction of the general grant—that is to say, from the beginning of the local authority financial year 1959–60. If the Bill had not been amended, some generally acceptable reforms would have had to be postponed until there was another opportunity for legislation. We felt that such a postponement was


unnecessary and, indeed, I had a duty to take the opportunity of legislating while the Bill with which the reforms are intimately connected was still before Parliament.
Some doubts have been expressed whether the Government were in earnest in offering to accompany the financial changes by administrative relaxations. By inserting the administrative proposals into the Bill, we have shown that we meant what we said. Presumably this cannot cause any offence. It can be said, and it has been said, that the changes proposed by the Government are not substantial. That is not true. There are nine separate provisions abolishing ministerial consents which are now required by statute. Local authorities will be relieved of the requirement to conduct their business through six committees whose appointment is now mandatory.
I come now to the main objection which has been raised. It could be objected—and the hon. Gentleman did so object—that their Lordships ought not to have amended the Long Title of the Bill. That is what it comes to. As a technical matter, there are plenty of precedents for such an Amendment. In the current Session there has been one. An example from the Administration of hon. Members opposite was the Bill for the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1949, and an older precedent of historic interest was the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929. These have been cases where the Long Title was amended by the Lords.

Mr. T. Fraser: I did not mention in precise terms the Amendment to the Long Title. My complaint really is that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Long Title as it was here, and he had so restricted it that we could not deal with administration. He took the Bill to the Lords and made Amendments there which he could not make when the Bill was in this House.

Mr. Maclay: I am coming to that point. I thought it right, as the hon. Member has made grave charges, to build up my case piece by piece.
Perhaps I had better come to that point now. The hon. Member said that if the Government had expected to insert these provisions later on, the words "and

administration" should have been included in the Long Title from the beginning. Hon. Members opposite have said that they feel that the omission of these words precluded them from moving their Amendments about local government administration when the Bill was in Committee. I agree that there is some force in that suggestion, but a completely honest answer can be given.
When the Bill was introduced, we did not expect to complete a review of administrative relaxations in time to include in it anything on this subject. That is the simple fact. All concerned deserve congratulations for having agreed to these proposals while the Bill is still before Parliament. I might add that there has been nothing to report so far from a similar review in England and Wales. We in Scotland have managed to get ahead with this matter effectively and, I confess, much faster than I expected.
It may be observed also that, if the Opposition were looking for an opportunity of putting forward administrative Amendments, there was an opportunity in the other place, where they did not lack spokesmen on this Bill.

Mr. William Ross: Really.

Mr. Maclay: Yes. There was a great deal of talk about the Bill.
To sum up—I shall repeat it, because I want it made quite clear—the Amendments consist of administrative relaxations which arise out of the financial provisions of the Bill, of which the Commons had ample notice, two words inserted in the Long Title, consequential upon what I have just referred to, and a few drafting Amendments. There are then the Amendments relating to the rating of salmon fishings, a subject which has already been debated in the House of Commons and on which the Government promised further consideration.
This analysis shows that what the hon. Member for Hamilton said and what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said during questions on the business statement on 17th July, referring to the Bill as being a completely different one having entirely new aspects which the House has had no opportunity of considering, is really a very great exaggeration. No such


thing can be said about these Amendments, although there is scope for explanation and debate. I hope, therefore, that the House will proceed to discuss them without more ado.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I wonder what kind of person we have as Secretary of State for Scotland when he can say that it is an exaggeration to suggest that this is a different Bill. The facts speak for themselves. We have a new schedule of 28 paragraphs dealing with a subject which was not discussed and which could not have been introduced as an Amendment in Committee or on Report because of the limitations of the Long Title of the Bill. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify himself? It is a completely changed Bill. We have no reason to accept his statement that we were giving given notice of this or that. The actual fact is that, by changing the Title—because of the different rules of order in another place he was allowed to do it—he introduced and made possible Amendments of the Bill dealing with the whole question of administration in Scotland.
If the opportunity had been available to us in the first place, the rights of the House of Commons, which we are trying to assert here, could then have been asserted. The Bill went through this House, on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report, and it went to another place. There was then inserted this widening of the scope. There was full freedom to the other place to do what it would. When the Bill comes back here, we are confronted with a group of Amendments, eight pages of them—about an additional quarter of the original size of the Bill—and we are given a day to look at them.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock): Half a day.

Mr. Ross: Just a moment. There is an old Scottish saying, "Do not pick me up before I fall". If we look at the list of Amendments as presented, we see that they were ordered to be printed on the 17th July. They were printed wrongly and they had to be reprinted yesterday. They came into our hands yesterday, these eight pages of, I hope, now correct Amendments, for our consideration. In actual discussion, we have half a day.
Surely, we, as a House of Commons, have a right not merely to say "Yea" or "Nay" on these questions of relaxations in administration. We have a right to a full Second Reading discussion of the whole principle. We have a right not only to amend what the Government suggest, but to put forward constructively our own additions in respect of administration. Although, when we look at the size of the addition to the Bill, it is quite a lot, in the actual subject of the freedom of local authorities in respect of controls by the central Administration, it is really nothing. It is just a handful of little sanctions which is being given away. It is not because we object to what it is in so much but because the Secretary of State would not allow us properly to go into that aspect and he denied us our rights by what I still consider was trickery—I will come to that, because the timing is important—that we are making our protest.
Let us consider the timing of it. The Secretary of State set up a committee. We did not know anything about it. We do not know to this day, nor does any hon. Gentleman opposite, who the members of the committee were. There was not, as far as we know, a single representative of a local authority in Scotland upon it. There were officials. They are coming to be known as the "stooges" on call for the Department whenever it wants something put through. The committee's report has never been presented to the public. I have never seen a copy of it. We do not even know what it reported or the extent to which all its suggestions were accepted by the Government.
The committee did report and something was embodied in a White Paper and then put into legislation. In passing, I would merely comment that the speed with which all this was done was quite miraculous. Never has any White Paper been so quickly put into legislation with so little discussion as this. It makes me come to the conclusion that this strange, unknown committee merely looked at suggestions which were put forward by the Secretary of State and his officials and said "Yea" to them. That is the reason for the speed.
A White Paper is usually a matter for the House to discuss before what is contained in it is embodied in legislation.


It is one of the courtesies of the House that the opinion of the House is taken. But not in this case. This White Paper was made available some time in June. I rather fancy that it was prepared long before June, but the Department put the stamp of June upon it knowing that it would be published in that month. That was the right time to publish it.
It will be noted, of course, that a date in June is not shown on the White Paper. It is not the 21st, the 23rd, the 3rd or anything like that; it is just "June".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: "Busting out all over."

Mr. Ross: The thing which is "busting out all over" is the strange desire for freedom on the part of the Secretary of State which he discovered after the discussion we had in relation to this "charter for freedom" in Committee. There is just no freedom in it, and he thought he had better get something in quickly.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State will remember the speech he made to the Standing Committee on 22nd April, about two months before. If he looks at that speech he will find that he told us that he was accepting a recommendation which appears in the Appendix to the White Paper published in June, two months later. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that? He will find it in col. 638 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings upstairs, when he said that the Government proposed to raise to £5,000 the capital figure for any project as the determining level; if the figure was below £5,000, sanction would be automatic. That appears as a suggestion in the Appendix to this White Paper published in June, and the hon. Gentleman's speech was made on 22nd April. The whole thing smacks of trickery.
I am concerned that we in the House of Commons should be able to assert our full rights to debate the whole principle of the relationship between local authorities and the central Departments, that we should not do it on a basis of agreeing or disagreeing with Lords Amendments, and that we should be able to assert our right to initiate suggestions about what freedom should be given. This is a trifling little bundle of freedoms which is being thrown at the local authorities when one considers the Measures with which they are concerned.
Consider for a moment this Local Government Bill. There is not a page in it which does not require that the sanction of the Secretary of State has to be sought. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says, "In nine cases we have relieved the local authorities of the need to ask for my permission". Does he remember one of the last Measures we had to consider while he was Secretary of State, the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act? He required sanction for local authorities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman now seems to be dealing with the merits of the Amendments with which we are concerned, but the Question before the House is, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." If the hon. Gentleman would direct his argument to that, he would be quite in order.

Mr. Ross: I know that is is rather complex, Mr. Speaker, but we are dealing here with a new section of the Bill dealing with local government administration. That is the heading of the Schedule. I am suggesting that the method by which it has been introduced into another place is such as to deprive us in the House of Commons of our rights to add to it. The Secretary of State was at great pains to say—I think I have his actual words—that we should consider the nature of the Amendments, and he said that there were nine separate provisions relieving local authorities of the necessity of asking him for sanction to do something. He thought that that was wonderful. I am pointing out now that, in one of the Bills he brought forward, on two pages of it alone there were more than nine new demands made upon them to go to the Secretary of State for sanction.
I suggest that the House of Commons should be properly treated. This is one of the reasons that we should not consider these Lords Amendments but should ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked, for separate legislation. We want to consider the whole scope of these things and see what help we can give the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to free the local authorities from his tyrannical control. I know that it is complex but, quite frankly, I do not see how, presently, I have been out of order in that respect, but I bow to your Ruling, Sir.
The Secretary of State seems to take for granted, in asking us to speed the consideration of these things, that the local authorities like them. What he really means is that officials of the local authorities, with whom officials of his Department went over them, seemed to think that they were all right. This is the position we have reached now. Officials of local authorities have traversed the whole field. Bureaucrats in St. Andrew's House have traversed the whole field. The Government have traversed the whole field. Another place has had the power to go over the whole field. We in the House of Commons, on the other hand, must say either "Yea" or "Nay" to 28 suggestions put forward from another place, and we are completely limited. To that we strongly object.
How can it be said that the local authorities themselves have had an opportunity of discussing these things? It must be well known to the Secretary of State that the major local authorities in Scotland are not holding meetings at present. They do not usually do so in July and August. The result is, of course, that they have had no opportunity, individually, as local authorities, to make their own suggestions consequent upon the White Paper. I know that the local authority associations were met and talked to by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that fact until now.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman is "jumping the gun".

Mr. Maclay: It is in the White Paper.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross: My speech is not nearly finished. I do not know what guns have got to do with it. As a member of the Cabinet, the right hon. Gentleman is getting into a rut. He will be landing paratroopers any day in Glasgow in order to raise the rents, or something.
The position is that the local authorities have not had the opportunity to discuss these matters and to make their suggestions. Let us not take for granted that all the suggestions of the Secretary of State are good, and we have the right to consider that fact. While these may be things that are laid upon the local authority, they are also duties that this House laid

upon the Secretary of State, and as a House we have a right to consider fully whether he is wise in relieving himself of the responsibility of certain of his functions, and the effect that it will have on the information available to this House in relation to local government and education in Scotland.
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends will respond to this challenge to the House. We were gagged in Committee and eventually we were guillotined. We were not allowed to discuss the things that were in the Bill as fully as we would have liked. Now we have a new section in the Bill dealing with an important sphere of Scottish government, and all we, the great Commons of Britain, can do is to say "Yea" or "Nay" to suggestions that have come from another place.
I hope that the Secretary of State is satisfied with the way that he has upheld the honour of the House of Commons.

Mr. Maclay: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: I know that he is satisfied; he is about the only one. He is very easily satisfied, as we have seen in the past. However, I think that we must express our complete disapproval of the way in which we have been treated. We should express our disapproval of the timing, the method, and the way that the Secretary of State has shielded himself from open discussion and, indeed, from what might have been embarrassing help in his desire to get freedom for local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I should like to turn to the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in support of his actions on these Amendments. I hope that tomorrow he will read his speech and see what nonsense it makes.
What did the right hon. Gentleman say in the course of his speech to justify this course of action? First, he said, "We had to put them into the Bill. Otherwise, they would not have come into operation in time for them to be brought into effect when the provisions of the Bill come into effect." That might have been all right if he had left the matter there, but he went on to say, "The committee which was set up to inquire into the relationships between local government and central administration completed its work


much more quickly than we expected. Therefore, we were able to put them into the Bill". What does that mean? It means that the Government did not expect the committee to finish its work in time for the proposals to go into the Bill. Yet the Government tell us that it was their intention to bring them into effect at the same time as the other proposals.
Therefore, the Government must have known when they introduced the Bill that they might have to introduce other legislation. That is what the Secretary of State's speech means, and nothing else. I hope that he will read what he has said and the arguments, because they make nonsense of each other. They cancel each other out.

Mr. Maclay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: Certainly they do. Did the right hon. Gentleman expect the committee to report by this date or not? If he did not, then he must have expected to have to introduce another Bill if he wanted to carry out his intention of making the two things operative at the same time. The Secretary of State ought to go into these matters and not merely accept a brief from his officials and come along here without having read and considered its implications.

Mr. Maclay: Of course I have considered the implications. When the Bill was started it was not realised that it was possible to get the agreement that we did get, in the end, with the local authority associations. Had we taken much longer we would have had to consider whether we should legislate to get these proposals passed into the law. I suggest that it would have been folly on the part of any responsible Secretary of State, when it proved possible to get them into the Bill without further delay, to miss that opportunity.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman is confirming what I have said. At the beginning of his speech he said, "It was our intention, when we introduced the Bill, to bring forward certain relaxations."

Mr. Maclay: It was certainly not possible in advance of the discussions to know whether these alterations would require legislation, or how many of them would require legislation. It might have been possible to arrive at a result which did not need legislation but regulation.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman confirms what I am arguing, namely, that when the Bill was introduced he was apparently fully alive to the possibility that, to implement what he stated during Second Reading to be the Government's intention, he might have to introduce new legislation. Is that so or not?

Mr. Maclay: Obviously, if something arose that needed legislation.

Mr. Willis: But does not that make nonsense of the fact that the Government have put the proposals into the Bill simply because by some miraculous happening the committee reported before the Bill was passed and, therefore, they had to be put into the Bill, otherwise it would not have become operative when the Government wanted it to become operative?
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the Government meant what they said and were prepared to introduce further legislation to give effect to these proposals in time for them to become operative by the time the financial provisions became effective, or not. If not, his speech this afternoon is nonsense. If the Government, however, were seized of this fact and were prepared to introduce legislation other than this Bill, then why did not the Government do that? That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked when he opened the debate.
It is because of this that we accuse the right hon. Gentleman of trickery and of denying us the right of full discussion of the Amendments. Either these Amendments are important or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, they do not amount to anything at all. But, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he said that these Amendments were important.

Mr. Ross: He is easily satisfied.

Mr. Willis: I am accepting his argument. These relaxations must be important in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman, because they justify, in his view, a very drastic alteration in the financial arrangements between the central authority and local government. Therefore, they must be important, otherwise, once again, he is talking nonsense. If they are important, why are we not able to discuss them properly? We ought to be able to discuss these proposals properly. Why


were we denied the opportunity of bringing forward our own suggestions for trying to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman himself wants to achieve, namely, the giving of greater liberty to local authorities?
I am bound to say that the Government procedure in this matter has been most tortuous. When one looks at the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, one can understand why it was done. Probably it was too much to expect anything better. I was rather too optimistic. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has treated us shabbily and we ought to protest. On a former occasion, I once told his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to get off his knees. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman is replying on this occasion, he will get on his knees and apologise to this side of the House for the manner in which we have been treated.

Sir James Henderson-Stewart: I think that in this case the Opposition have some justification for a healthy grumble. It has always been my experience that if Amendments which come down from another place are much longer than we expected and cover new ground, the Opposition have made a little noise. I did that myself, so I am not in the least surprised that the Opposition have taken the opportunity to express their views. Since, however, hon. Members opposite have made their protest, sometimes with considerable skill and force, I do not think that it would be in the interests of our country and its legislation if we went on discussing this topic to the exclusion of the detail of the Amendments which are before us.
There seems to be some division on the other side of the House whether these are important matters, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, or a trifling little bundle of freedoms, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said. Perhaps the right answer would be somewhere in between. But these are not very important matters, certainly not sufficiently important to go on taking up valuable time discussing whether we should discuss them. Therefore, all I venture to say to the hon. Members, on both sides, is that having now

discussed the matter, we might get on to the business.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Member look at paragraph 2 of the new Schedule and tell me whether he considers it important?

Mr. James McInnes: I wonder whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) realises that we regard the freedom to which the Secretary of State referred as a little bundle of freedoms in relation to the extent of the freedom which might have been allowed had we the opportunity, which has been denied to us, of putting down Amendments and new Clauses during the proceedings on the Bill upstairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) accused the Government of indulging in sharp practice, a practice which has denied us the opportunity of dealing effectively and efficiently with the administrative side of the Bill. I was astonished at the rapidity with which the right hon. Gentleman sought to get his Bill. If my memory serves me correctly, we were guillotined on it. If we had not been guillotined, we would probably still be sitting in Committee on the Bill and we would then have had an opportunity of dealing with the recommendations of the working party, which the Secretary of State could have incorporated in the Bill during the Committee stage.
I, too, regard this as a piece of sharp practice, and for this reason. Yesterday, we were presented with Lords Amendments covering eight pages and between 3,000 and 4,000 words. It is grossly unfair that we should have the opportunity of only a few hours to go into the full implications of all the Amendments which have been passed in another place.
4.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill was fully discussed in another place. He must, however, recognise that that is quite untrue. Indeed, the whole principle of the Bill was never challenged except on the questions of salmon fishing and of a memorandum sent to a noble Lord by the Glasgow Corporation dealing with the National Health Service Act. Those were the only two contributions and the rest of the Bill was passed without comment.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he did not anticipate receiving the report of the working party dealing with the question of administration. If he did not anticipate receiving it, why did he, at the eleventh hour, decide to incorporate the working party's recommendations by this process of Amendments in another place? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, as best he can, why he could not, in the autumn, introduce another Bill dealing exclusively with the question of administration?
I must also protest at the lack of opportunity, which has been denied to all of us, of consulting our local authorities and ascertaining their reaction. If I had consulted Glasgow Corporation—not the Counties of Cities Association, but Glasgow Corporation as such—I am satisfied that as a result of my conversations with that body I could produce many Amendments which would have resulted in real measures of freedom.
What are the freedoms contained in the Amendments from another place? They amount to only half an hour's or an hour's work per day for the officials of a large authority like that of Glasgow. There is no freedom in respect of the councillors or the functioning of committees, but purely in administrative work by officials of local government, and a negligible amount of freedom it is. I am amused at the contortions, the convulsions and the acrobatics of the Secretary of State in his intent to defend the procedure which he is adopting. It is a shocking exhibition and I enter my protest.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Naturally, we do not want to spend the limited time at our disposal in discussing this matter for the rest of the afternoon. It is, however, important that the Opposition and the House of Commons should look after the rights and liberties of the House. Had the Secretary of State been on this side of the House, we can imagine from previous experience what he would have said about this kind of behaviour by a Government.
The House of Commons has the right to watch the Executive and what has been done. It could, in fact, be trickery; the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that. It could be a "fast one". It was fast in the sense that it was done so

quickly that nobody had any time to consider the matter until it appeared on the Order Paper.
The Secretary of State will also agree that while the officials of the Counties of Cities, the Convention of Burghs, and other people may have looked at the matter in a hurry, it has not been possible for the local authorities to examine these questions as they would wish to do with propositions affecting the running of town and county councils. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the councillors have not had a chance.
One of the defects of our system is that local councillors are so overworked in many ways that it is difficult for them to give detailed attention to changes of this kind. Members of Parliament themselves have not had an opportunity to go into the matter as thoroughly as they would like to do. Acting in this way, with neither councillors nor Members of Parliament having opportunity to consider these things carefully, the Executive are rushing things through Parliament and getting their powers almost in the way a dictator would, and without any consideration at all.
Therefore, it is our business today to protest to the Government at this method of doing things. The Secretary of State has made excuses for it. His justification was that it would save time, and so on. As my hon. Friends have said, he knew that all these provisions were being considered, and he could have made provision in the Long Title of the Bill long ago so that hon. Members in Committee on the Bill could have discussed them.
The Scots Members, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, like to discuss their detailed business in the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Ede: And the English like them to do it there.

Mr. Woodburn: That shows the unanimity in the House on the point I am making.
To introduce legislation in this fashion is to short-circuit the Scottish Standing Committee whose duty it is to consider such matters as these in detail. We are not going to stand for it willingly, for a method by which important legislation can by-pass the Scottish Standing Committee, where it ought to have detailed


consideration. We shall consider some of these details, so far as we can in the short time available, but I want to register, and my hon. Friends want to register, a protest against this treatment of both the Scottish Standing Committee and the House and their rights.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: Legislation which affects local authorities and their administration is always important, and in the past there has always been consultation with the local authorities and their elected members on such matters as these. I do not know who the members of the working party were. Are we not entitled to know who they were? Will the Secretary of State, before proceeding further, give us the names of the members of the working party and tell us when their report was issued and to whom it was issued, to whom they made representations and what replies they received?
The Bill is supposed to be a Bill giving freedom to local authorities, but if the Secretary of State goes on like this he will make it a Bill to tie them up. Before we proceed further we are entitled, as Members representing local authorities, to know who were the working party, by whom they were appointed, whom they represented, what their findings were. Did they report to the local authorities themselves? Were any representatives of the local authorities present? Did they know what the considerations were? How can this be called freedom unless we have answers to these questions?

Mr. John Rankin: I have no desire to draw you into this argument, Mr. Speaker, but you gave a Ruling earlier in the debate which emphasises the difficulty in which the Opposition are placed by the deliberate action of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Your Ruling was that our sole function is either to agree or to disagree with the Lords in their Amendments, and by that Ruling we have absolutely no right to discuss any of the other freedoms which we should have the right to discuss.
The Secretary of State has said that he has given many freedoms, through these Lords Amendments. However, had these matters come before us in the proper way how many others would we have

proposed, and how many would we have convinced the Government are necessary?
We have been deprived of that right, and in depriving us of that right the Secretary of State was fully aware of what he was doing. I am not suggesting that he engaged in trickery. He acted with his eyes open; he knew clearly and fully that he was depriving the Opposition and the House of fundamental rights which belong to the House.

Mr. Willis: Is not that trickery?

Mr. Rankin: It may be trickery, but it may also be the action of an individual who has the instincts of a dictator. I do not want to introduce Huey Long into this discussion.
But the Secretary of State was not not carrying out a simple, silly trick. He was doing something deliberately of whose parliamentary consequences he was fully aware. He was depriving this House of rights which belong to Members, and he was doing it deliberately, and he was doing it because he wanted to prevent discussion. He had already indicated his desire to prevent discussion by timetabling the previous proceedings in Committee on the Bill.
If any hon. Gentleman on the opposite side desires to contradict me he has ample opportunity. There are still hours ahead of us. We have the whole of the rest of the day and the whole of the night. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is a Private Bill."] The Manchester Corporation Bill will be considered at 7 o'clock, but it will be disposed of by 10 o'clock, and then the whole night is ours. If the Government think that these Lords Amendments are of sufficient importance to discuss, we are prepared to discuss them. We believe that to be fundamental to the rights of this House.
The Secretary of State is weakening those rights by the action he is taking. If either the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary of State is to reply to this debate, perhaps he will be able to show us that this action has strengthened the rights of the House of Commons, or, if he cannot show that, perhaps he will be able to show how it leaves them unimpaired. Undoubtedly, however, the right hon. Gentleman has short-circuited proceedings in this House and in that he has done something wrong.
For even the vilest sinner there is always the lamp of mercy burning, and for the Secretary of State the lamp of mercy still burns, and he can return to grace, because he can tell us that, recognising that he has withdrawn from us certain rights, he will agree that these Lords Amendments should be remitted to the Scottish Standing Committee to be dealt with there. Why not?

Miss Margaret Herbison: If my hon. Friend feels that he can get the Secretary of State to agree to that, will he not go further and say that when they are remitted to the Scottish Standing Committee hon. Members on either side of this House ought to be able to move other Amendments?

Mr. Rankin: I will go as far as you like, Peggy. Yes, of course; I am fully in agreement with that. Why not?
If that is done, then we shall restore to this House and to the Scottish Standing Committee the rights of which the Secretary of State is depriving us. Why should we not? The Secretary of State—now, he is not to become impatient with me—must not seek to deprive us of the right even of speaking in this Chamber, or even to restrict what we want to say. He has restricted our actions, but he must give us full freedom to protest against his action.
Therefore, the way is open. The right hon. Gentleman should look at these Amendments and refer them to the Scottish Standing Committee. He should also adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), with which I fully agree. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and the Joint Under-Secretary of State are now discussing the suggestions made. I hope that whoever replies will tell us that it is intended to return stolen property and that these Amendments will be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee to be fully discussed there and, if necessary, amended and further expanded.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: When the Secretary of State was giving us the reasons for accepting the Amendments, and bringing them before us today, he told us that the Bill would be incomplete without the Lords Amendments. He said that without them further

legislation would be necessary. The Bill could not be adequately operated unless the Amendments were made. If I misunderstood him I apologise, but I thought that he also told us that the early publication of the White Paper "Local Government and Central Departments in Scotland" had been a surprise. In consequence, the Government had been informed of the kind of changes that could be made with advantage and they had hastened to adopt the suggestions by making use of another place, with the result that today we have these Amendments before us.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to boast that we were a jump ahead of the English in this matter. I understand that the Bill with which English and Welsh Members dealt, covering the same ground, has already been back to the House of Commons and the House has dealt with the Lords Amendments. As far as I can understand, and judging by what the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Lords Amendments relating to the English Bill will not make the changes that the Lords Amendments make in this Bill.
The House of Commons has finished with the English Bill. The Bill has gone back to another place and nothing else can happen but that it will be given the Royal Assent. That can mean only that the Bill will be incomplete and there must be further legislation to make the sort of changes which are proposed to be made in the Scottish Bill. It means, therefore, that English and Welsh Members will have an opportunity to deal in a fresh Bill with precisely the same matters with which we are asked not to deal but to accept or reject.
We Scottish Members, therefore, have been put in an invidious position. We have not been enabled to discuss and modify matters which must come before the House of Commons later in the form of a new Bill applicable to England and Wales. On that account alone, the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider this matter, draw up Amendments, issue them in the form of a new Bill and allow us to deal with it in the normal way and discuss and amend it as we think necessary.

Mr. Maclay: I rise, with the permission of the House, to deal with the points that have just been made. In reply


to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), the words were that relaxations were intimately connected with the Bill but were not an integral part of it and it would have been possible to have the Bill without them. It astonishes me that I have not been thanked by hon. Members for what is happening. I should have thought that if we had the possibility of producing relaxations and of securing them concurrently with the Bill it would have been a matter for at least some thanks.
I can understand the reasons which have led hon. Members opposite, and the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) to comment on this procedure. I agree that it is not an ideal one, but surely the whole essence of our Constitution is that if something sensible can be done it is done. The charge generally made against us in Parliament is that we take so long in doing things that people lose interest.
I am all for a full and detailed debate, as far as is reasonable and consistent with the maintenance of the democratic system. It is very well known that some democracies have gone down because they have not stopped talking. It cannot be claimed that in my time as Secretary of State I have ever unreasonably suppressed discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guillotine."] I may have been connected with moving Closures on discussions when they have gone on for a very long time, but that is all a matter for argument and perhaps is not relevant to this discussion. I agree, however, that it was quite right to raise this issue. I do not think that it is an entirely satisfactory procedure, provided that another is available to do the things which we want done.
The procedure followed by the working party was normal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who were they?"] It is not normal to give the names of a working party. Some of the members were nominated by the local authority associations and some represented my Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] I have not the figures here, but it was a perfectly normal type of working party. The Amendments were accepted by the local authority associations at a meeting with the Minister of State for Scotland, as stated clearly in the opening paragraph of the White Paper. Therefore, while I can understand why hon. Members opposite are raising these

points, I suggest that there is no substance in them.

Mr. Ross: Did the local authorities have the opportunity to put forward suggestions themselves to the working party?

Mr. Maclay: The working party was conducted in the normal way in which the possibility or otherwise of changes are discussed.

Mr. Ross: Can I have an answer?

Mr. Maclay: The answer is, "Yes". It depends on whom one means by "local authorities". It is clear that each local authority was not consulted by the Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is never the way in which it is done. It is done by the local authority associations nominating people to the working party.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is it not normal, however, for individual local authorities to make suggestions about alterations in local government administration before a Bill is passed?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot answer for the detail of every stage of the discussion, but presumably through the local authority associations and the nominees on the working party that procedure went on.

Mr. Fraser: It could not.

Mr. Maclay: It is not practicable to consult every single local authority. One has to work through the associations.

Mr. Fraser: Was the Town Council of Gourock given an opportunity of seeing the working party? What opportunity did that council or any other local authority have to make suggestions?

Mr. Maclay: I repeat that the normal procedure was followed of a working party which discusses these things at the Scottish Office.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman means National Liberal procedure.

Mr. Maclay: I have listened to all the appeals made but I would not be serving the best interests of the House or of Scotland if I responded to them. What we have to consider this afternoon is constructive and helpful. The only other thing I note with the greatest of interest is an addition to the list of things I have been described as, which is, a jellyfish with the instincts of a dictator.

Question put, That the Lords Amendments be now considered:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 184.

Division No. 203.]
AYES
[4.40 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew, R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Mawby, R. L.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Armstrong, C. W.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Ashton, H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Atkins, H. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Barber, Anthony
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Neave, Airey


Barlow, Sir John
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicholls, Harmar


Batsford, Brian
Hesketh, R. F.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Bidgood, J. C.




Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Black, C. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.


Body, R. F.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Braine, B. R.
Hornby, R. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Partridge, E.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peel, W. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, John (Test)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell, Sir David
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pott, H. P.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cole, Norman
Hyde, Montgomery
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Ramsden, J. E.


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Renton, D. L. M.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robertson, Sir David


Cunningham, Knox
Joseph, Sir Keith
Roper, Sir Harold


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Dance, J. C. G.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Russell, R. S.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, P. M.
Sharples, R. C.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Shepherd, William


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


du Cann, E. D. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Speir, R. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leavey, J. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Storey, S.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Erroll, F. J.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Gammans, Lady
McAdden, S. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McKibbin, Alan
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turner, H. F. L.


Glover, D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Vane, W. M. F.


Gower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Green, A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wall, Patrick


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Webster, David


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, W. S. I.




Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Woollam, John Victor
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Mr. Hughes-Young.


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)






NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Paget, R. T.


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Pearson, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Pentland, N.


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Proctor, W. T.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Holmes, Horace
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, Frank
Holt, A. F.
Reeves, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hoy, J. H.
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Reynolds, G. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bonham, Carter, Mark
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.

Spriggs, Leslie


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Steels, T.


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Stonehouse, John


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cronin, J. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Marcus
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McCann, J.
Thornton, E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacColl, J. E.
Timmons, J.


Deer, G.
MacDermot, Niall
Viant, S. P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McKay, John (Wallsend)



Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Finch, H. J.
Messer, Sir F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Foot, D. M.
Monslow, W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mort, D. L.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woof, R. E.


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.



Grimond, J.
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Consideration of the Lords Amendment in the Title, line 4, postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Amendments.—[Mr. N. Browne.]

Clause 1.—(GENERAL GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 1, leave out "otherwise than under section thirty of" and insert:
for those years under any enactment passed before this Act other than

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. There was a similar Amendment to Clause I of the English Measure. Its purpose is to make it clear that the scope of the general grant is such that it is in lieu only of grants which, apart from the Bill, would be payable until 1959–60, and subsequent years under existing enactments. The Amendment makes it clear that after the Bill is passed future legislation can provide for specific grants even in relation to relevant expenditure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6.—(MODIFICATIONS IN ENACTMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON THIS PART OF THIS ACT AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1958.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 5, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
the Local Government Act, 1958.

Clause 7.—(RATEABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL AND FREIGHT TRANSPORT LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 32, at end insert:
(2) For the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and subsequent years the rights of salmon fishing to which this subsection applies shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be deemed for the purpose of making up any valuation roll to be agricultural lands and heritages:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any right of a district fishery board to require the assessor to value and enter such rights of salmon fishing in the valuation roll for the purposes of fishery assessments only.
(3) The last foregoing subsection—

(a) applies to rights of salmon fishing which are exercised by net or cruive and are so exercised regularly throughout the periods during which that method of fishing is allowed by law, and in respect of which no revenue is derived by the owner or occupier thereof from any other method of fishing during any part of those periods; and
(b) does not apply to any dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, drying greens or other corporeal lands and heritages, whether occupied or used in connection with rights of salmon fishing to which the last foregoing subsection applies or not.

(4) Any dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, drying greens or other corporeal lands and heritages occupied or used in connection with rights of salmon fishing to which subsection (2)

of this section applies shall, for the purpose of making up the valuation roll for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine and any subsequent year, be treated as lands and heritages which are neither industrial nor agricultural.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will probably be for the convenience of the House if we also take the Amendments in lines 39, 40 and 41 and in page 6, line 4.
The effect of these Amendments is to treat salmon net fishings as agricultural land and heritages for rating purposes, but to treat bothies, drying greens and other physical properties connected with such fishing as neither agricultural nor industrial, so that they will be rated at their full value, at any rate until 1961–62.
It will be recalled that an Amendment dealing with the same subject was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in the Scottish Standing Committee and was withdrawn on an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to consider the arguments put forward. My hon. Friend's Amendment differed from that now before us chiefly in not making provision for the separate valuation of bothies and drying greens and so on, which are occupied in connection with salmon fishing.
Its effect appeared to be, as my hon. Friend said, to derate salmon fishing entirely when the new provisions for the valuation of agricultural land and heritages, contained in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, came into force in 1961–62. The present Amendment, on the contrary, provides for those properties which now receive the benefit of industrial derating in some areas to be rated at their full value, and it therefore meets the argument for giving salmon fishing some relief from rates without freeing it from rating liability altogether.
The history of the rating of salmon net fishing shows that it has been arguable whether it should be treated as industry or agriculture, and the question for decision is which is the right description in the altered circumstances caused by re-rating. Both salmon net fishing and agriculture provide an important source of employment in the Highlands and


other sparsely populated areas and employ very much the same men at different times of the year. It has also been represented to us that the number of netting stations in operation has declined and that more will have to close down, with a consequent increase in unemployment, if an increased rate burden is imposed.
It has been calculated that the rate burden of salmon net fishing is already proportionately greater than that carried by industry as a whole. The estimates available show that in 1957 salmon net fishings paid in rates about 6½ per cent. of the value of their catch, which is their gross output, which is substantially more than the average for industry as a whole.

Mr. Rankin: Did the right hon. Gentleman have those figures available when this matter was discussed in Committee?

Mr. Maclay: Some of them were available but not as fully understood by myself and others as they should have been. I accept that.
As the Bill was introduced, this burden would have been doubled with the partial rerating of industry in May, 1959. We undertook to study this matter very carefully—and it required a good deal of study to see what was the wise thing to do.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I remember this matter being discussed in Committee. It was also discussed in another place and was also resisted by the Government on that occasion.

Mr. Maclay: We continued to examine this matter after the Bill had gone to another place. I forget the exact timetable of what happened in another place, but it is correct that we were not satisfied that a better method would not be found for doing this at a later stage. If one finds on reconsideration that something is practical and fair, it should be done. After examination of all the considerations, we came to the conclusion that we would be justified in treating salmon fishings as agriculture.
As hon. Members may know, there is one other point to make clear. The Association of County Councils in Scotland circulated a letter when this Amendment was before the other place representing against it, chiefly because of the loss of rateable value which would result. The

Association has now asked the Minister of State for an assurance that the general grant will be increased to take account of the loss of rateable value. The argument behind this representation is that paragraph 18 of the White Paper on Local Government Finance in Scotland indicated that the general grant and the equalisation grant together would not be abated by more than two-thirds of the proceeds of rerating less the total of abolished grants. As the proceeds of rerating would be reduced by derating salmon fishings, on the basis of the Amendment, the Association suggested that this should be taken into account in making the calculation of general grant, and I am glad to say that, after studying this carefully, the Government are able to accept the suggestion.
However, it will be appreciated that one of the reasons why the Government advise the House to accept the Amendments is that the additional rate burden which would be imposed by continuing to treat the net fishings as industry and, therefore, subject to rating at 50 per cent. of their net annual value would result in the closing down of some net fishing stations. Consequently, there would have been a loss of rateable value to rating authorities. The calculation of the loss of rateable value resulting from the Amendments will be one of some complexity, but we will make the best calculation we can and make allowances for it in determining the general grant over the necessary period.
To sum up: The Amendment meets a representation made in Committee and subsequently and one with which we had some sympathy. It removes a difficulty in that the original proposal would have entirely relieved salmon fishings of rates. As I have said, we are prepared to make adjustments of the general grant in respect of the loss of rateable value which would otherwise fall on certain county councils. In those circumstances, I have no hesitation in commending the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the total block grant will be increased to allow for the loss?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, that is what it means.

Mr. T. Fraser: I do not think the Secretary of State will have convinced


himself that he made out a case for this concession to the salmon net fishing industry. He has not made out the case, although he may have a case to make. We are not sure why the concession is being made. It was first urged on Scottish Members by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) when he put down an Amendment to Clause 7 in Committee. He urged the case on that occasion on the ground that great hardship would be caused to the people who were carrying out these operations if a concession were not made, and he also argued that fishing could be better compared with agriculture than with industry.
At that time, no hon. Member seemed to have taken into account the fact that this was a concession which would not mean anything to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but was a concession which the Government were being asked to make by Statute to the salmon net fishing industry at the expense of other ratepayers in the area.
Several things have happened since the hon. Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) moved a Clause in Committee. The idea was canvassed again on Second Reading and during the Committee stages in another place, and an Amendment was made on Report in another place. I have listened to many of the discussions which have taken place on the matter and have very carefully read reports of those to which I have not been able to listen. I am bound to say that those who have canvassed this concession have had to scrape the barrel to find some justification for it.
5.0 p.m.
At one time, the concession was advanced on the basis that the industry was more comparable with agriculture than with other industries; on another occasion, the argument was that it provided employment for people in areas where there was unemployment, and on yet another occasion it was pointed out that there were only a few people in the industry and that it would be a great hardship to them if they were to be asked to pay even higher rates. The Amendment now provides that they will pay even lower rates than at present.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would argue that it is a combination of all these reasons which has

influenced him in accepting the change proposed in another place. So far as I can see, this industry is comparable neither with agriculture nor with industry generally. It is an industry in which a good deal of money changes hands considering the small number of people employed in it. The County Councils Association was alerted by some of the things hon. Members on this side of the House had the temerity to say in Committee, and it has now made its representations, and the Secretary of State has given it an assurance that by taking the general grant and the equalisation grant together local authorities will have made good to them that which they will lose under the terms of the Amendment.
I shall take an awful lot of convincing that the right hon. Gentleman can do that. He is not free to dole out the Exchequer equalisation grant or general grant as he thinks fit. Provision is made by statute for his administration of those grants. An existing Act of Parliament deals with the Exchequer equalisation grant, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot decide to make good what local authorities lose in this way by raising the amount of grant that they will get just as he cares. As for the general grant, is he telling us that he can fiddle about with the formula in the Bill as he thinks fit? I thought that he was free, together with the Chancellor, to determine the aggregate amount of general grant, but that after he had done so he had to disburse it in accordance with the formula in the Bill. If that is correct, how comes it that a local authority will be able to get more money by way of general grant because it is losing something on salmon net fishings?
We must not be misled by a bland assertion that the other ratepayers in the affected areas will not have an increased burden put upon them.

Mr. Maclay: I will try to clear up this point. The County Councils Association suggested that this element should be taken into account in making the initial calculation of general grant, and we are accepting that suggestion.

Mr. Fraser: Is this a concession? How much money is paid in rates by the salmon net fishing industry in the whole of Scotland? If this is to be taken into account in making the initial calculation,


it will merely mean an increase in the aggregate amount of grant, and the authorities who will get most out of it will be the large ones, like the City of Glasgow and the City of Edinburgh, which have not lost anything in this respect. It is the poverty-stricken local authorities in the sparsely populated areas in the North of Scotland which will lose the income. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that they will be well satisfied to know that what they have lost has been gained by Edinburgh and Glasgow? This proposition will not be acceptable to those local authorities who are affected.
In any case, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that the industry is unable to pay the present rates levied upon it, why does he not take the power to give local authorities discretion in the granting of rate relief on the ground of inability to pay? I can give the answer to that question at once. When my constituents, who are ordinary working people, ask for relief of rates they have to put their cards on the table face up and prove to the local authority that they are unable to pay. The right hon Gentleman would not be anxious that a local authority which was asked by a salmon net fishing company to grant it relief of rates should say to that company, "Let us have your cards on the table face up. Let us see whether you are unable to pay".
I put it to the House that the concession ought not to be granted on the ground of inability to pay. If a case is to be made on that ground, the applicant for relief ought to be required to prove to the local authority concerned that he is unable to pay. Is there any reason why the Secretary of State should not have made an Amendment to provide for the exercise of his discretion by the local authorities concerned? I read very carefully not only what was said in Committee in this House but also what was said in another place. I understand that the Beauly fishings have a rent of £8,300 a year.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: In spite of that, the company lost money last year.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member has anticipated what I was going to say. The company paid a rent of £8,300 last year and, according to what was said in another

place, it also paid £25,000 in wages—and it lost money at the end of the year. I want to know who got the £8,300. Was it the Crown? If the Crown took £8,300 from the salmon net fishing industry in that part of the country, what had the Crown to do to earn that rent? Did it incur any expenditure? How was that rent arrived at? Was it arrived at by competitive tender, or was this the highest offer? Of course, it was the highest offer. The salmon net fishing industry determines its own rateable value by fixing too high rents. That is what happens in river estuaries all over the country. It is nonsense to say that if a company goes out of business in a certain area there will no longer be any salmon fishing there. Somebody else will get the job at a lower rent. It is the companies themselves who determine the scandalously high valuation upon which they pay their rates, because it is they who determine the rents.
We have this ludicrous position in which a company of two or three men offer several thousands pounds for the right to fish in a river estuary and off a little bit of the coastline. The person from whom they rent the fishing does not have to put up any buildings or expend any money to lure the salmon into the river. He has no outgoings. He merely owns the fishing. Very often it is the Crown which owns it. Then these companies come along and compete with each other for the right to engage in fishing. They determine the rateable value upon which they have to pay their rates, and then they plead that their income is not sufficient to pay the rates on their rents.
I should have thought that if these people are to be protected and their outgoings reduced it would be far better for their rents to be reduced. In Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said that the local authority provided virtually no services for these people. The owner of the fishings provide no services for them either, but there is no suggestion that the rents should be reduced. The only suggestion is that the rates should be reduced. There is no suggestion that the Crown should take less; there is only a suggestion that the local authorities should take less.
The salmon net fishing companies have the remedy in their own hands. I have been told that they do not quite have the


remedy because they may have taken a long lease—but they can get out of it. I am fairly certain that those who engage in this industry make a lot of money. I am fairly certain that those people who run this salmon net fishing industry around the coast of Scotland, especially in the north, have incomes substantially in excess of the incomes of the other ratepayers who will be penalised by this concession. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that these people pay their rates on the valuation and that the valuation is determined by them through the rents—and those rents are incredibly high. In many cases they are drawn by the Crown, although not in all cases. I leave it to the Secretary of State to make this position quite clear.
I also want the Secretary of State to describe our rating system. Does he say that it is a payment for services rendered, or that it is a system of local taxation? This is nothing to laugh at, because it goes to the root of the proposition. If the system of rating is to be described as a payment for services rendered, we ought to agree to the Amendment—but in that case there are many other Amendments that would require to be made in the Bill. If, on the other hand, it is a system of local taxation, we ought not to make this concession. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment represented something which was practicable and fair we ought to accept it, and I entirely agree. But a case has not been made out that it is practicable and fair.
I am often accused of having prejudices, and I think it is better that I should announce them myself. When I see another place being loaded with noble Lords who come here only infrequently in the course of the year in order to argue for Amendments of this kind, I am not readily convinced that they are arguing for the poor crofters in the North of Scotland. One after another of them would tell us that they have a financial interest in the business.
They are not losing money on salmon. We have just been discussing the case of one who received a large sum of money for a little injury that might be caused to the salmon pools in the North of Scotland—the sum of £100,000. Yet he is making a loss on some of these fishings and he wants a concession at the expense of the other ratepayers in the area. I do not think we should accept it. I invite the

House to reject the advice of the Secretary of State and this Amendment from another place.

5.15 p.m.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am grateful to the Government for having brought forward this Amendment and to those in another place who have made it possible. I am sure it is right that it should be written into the Bill. I do not know how far I shall be in order in following up the last few remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who contrived to suggest that those noble Lords who spoke in favour of this Amendment had an interest in salmon fishings of one kind or another and seldom came to London to take part in the debates in another place.
If the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory by looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT—I am glad that he has a copy before him—he will find—I say again that I do not know whether I shall be out or order in saying this—that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, who is a constituent of mine, is a young peer who takes a great part in the affairs of another place. Certainly he has no interest in salmon fisheries.
There was another noble Lord who took part, another young man from the County of Aberdeen who, so far as I know, has no interest in salmon net fisheries. The noble Lord, Lord Dundee, who is well known in this House, who has no such interest, also took part in the debate. The only one who has an interest is a noble Lord with an interest in river fishings. So it is wrong for the hon. Member for Hamilton to suggest that noble Lords who spoke to this Amendment have a pecuniary interest in salmon fishing, and certainly all those who spoke come frequently to another place to take part in the debates there.
I am concerned with the principle of the thing. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member who expressed doubts about how local authorities would be recouped by means of the block grant. That is not part of the argument which I wish to put forward. I doubt whether as a result of this there will be much, if any, loss of rates by local authorities. I can speak with some knowledge of two local authorities where there are salmon net fishings. I say that as I know from experience that salmon net fishings are


being given up because they are not proving profitable. If they are given up, it means that there will be no rateability at all and local authorities will lose such rates as are paid at present. So in actual fact, the loss of rates will not be great.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said he was not sure on what grounds this Amendment had been put forward. He advanced various reasons which had been adduced, and all of them were good. There are others which the hon. Gentleman did not mention. This is, in fact, an export industry. Scottish salmon is an export in these days—

Mr. Rankin: So is whisky.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Now with the developments in deep freezing and in the smoking of salmon, Scottish salmon is exported to such places as Kuwait, Australia, South Africa, South America, the United States, the West Indies, Nairobi, Bulawayo and Salisbury.

Mr. Rankin: And the industry is still making a loss.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It is exported—

Mr. Ross: At a loss.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: —and it is a highly competitive business.

Mr. Ross: At a loss.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Scottish salmon has to compete in Billingsgate Market with great quantities of salmon from Ireland. It is the Irish salmon that, to a large extent, determines the prices at Billingsgate Market.

Mr. Rankin: Why?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member asks, "Why?" The reason is that it comes in in larger quantities.
I took the trouble to get out some figures for the last ten years which show that deliveries into Billingsgate Market between 1946 and 1956 included 18,300 boxes of salmon, of which 6,350 came from Scotland and 7,300 boxes came from Ireland. So that it is the Irish salmon which, to a large extent, controls the prices at Billingsgate. This morning the figures of deliveries of salmon to Billingsgate Market show that out of 500

to 600 boxes most of them were Irish grilse.
The other and the more potent reason why I welcome this Amendment is that although I admit and agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton that there are big firms in the business which, taking one year with another, are making big money, at the other end of the scale there are a number of very small men. There are a number of share fishermen, small individuals carrying out this salmon net fishing on their own account. It is these businesses, operated on small margins, which have been making losses and are going out of business, and that is a serious thing.
I have been furnished with figures—I did not ask for them—showing how the fishing round the Scottish coasts is held. In the Tweed area, whether the total rateability on net fishing is about £4,500, there are two substantial firms. One pays a rental of over £3,000 a year and the other £700. All the other fishermen are small men, some of them working on a share basis.

Mr. T. Fraser: Are these fishermen covered by this Amendment? I have been to see these people, and I was under the impression that they were mostly on the English side of the Border.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: On the Tweed, that is perfectly true. Quite a large proportion of the fishing into the mouth of the Tweed is done on the English side of the Border.
Going farther north into the Kingdom of Fife, one finds a rather sad story. Prior to 1924, there were as many as 90 salmon fishing stations of one kind and another. Most were fairly small. In 1924, one of the big firms took over most of these stations, and at that time it operated about 12 fisheries and employed about 51 men. I was wrong. It is not 90 stations, it is 90 men that were employed in fisheries up and down the coast of the Kingdom of Fife, and they were mostly small men. Then the big firm came in. It operated 12 fisheries and employed more than 50 men. But the business dwindled until only 26 men were employed, and finally the firm gave up these fishings altogether in 1942.
We get the same sort of story round the coast of Scotland. These fishings are not proving profitable and, one after another, they are being given up. That


is a serious thing for the employment of men in the small villages from which most of these men come. In North Angus and in my own County, the Mearns, in Kincardineshire, particularly South Kincardineshire, the salmon fishings draw most of their men from Montrose, from St. Cyrus, from Johnshaven and from Gourdon. It happens that in that area the unemployment figure for males is double the national average. It is a pocket of unemployment and, naturally, we are fighting desperately to keep every man we can in employment. If any of these fishings are given up it means that half-a-dozen men here and nine or ten there are out of a job. That may not be a big figure to hon. Members who represent urban constituencies in the West of Scotland. But it is important to the small coastal villages, and naturally we want to do all we can to see that these men are kept in business.
In another place, a noble Lord told about one of these small fishings in Kincardineshire where twelve men were employed. The rental was between £450 and £500 a year. The rates were £96 and wages amounted to £3,500. Sales amounted to about £6,000 last year. That small fishery lost £1,500 last year in loss of nets, which is a hazard net fishermen have continually to face. As hon. Members know, these nets are fixed in the sea by stakes, and when there is a gale the nets are swept away. There are also awful depredations by grey seals. There are far too many of these grey seals. More of them should be knocked on the head in the Farne Islands so as to reduce the seal population. That could be done without any cruelty. However, that is another point.
This small fishery in Kincardineshire made a net profit last year of only £179. That kind of margin is far too small. The hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned a fishery in the Moray Firth which last year showed a loss. What really happens when rates are increased? It means not only doubling the rates but that these fisheries will be asked for about three times the pre-1956 rates. It is not just a question of doubling the figure; it means that many of these small fisheries are going out of business. It is in order that they may be kept in business that I welcome the Amendment which we are now asked to agree to.

Mr. Rankin: One point about this matter puzzles me. I have not figures with which to oppose those quoted by the hon. Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), and, of course, I do not dispute his. But surely every figure and every circumstance which he has detailed about this industry was known to the Government. I say that because of what the Secretary of State said in reply to an intervention of mine earlier in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman said during the Committee stage discussions that the Government would inquire into all the circumstances that affected this industry. He said that in response to an Amendment which had been moved. To the best of my recollection, that Amendment was moved early in May. At least the Bill passed from our consideration before Whitsun, and I think I am right in saying that that promise was made by the Secretary of State early in May.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: On 29th April.

Mr. Rankin: All right. We are back in April, which adds to the strength of my case.
Therefore, the Secretary of State and his officers had the whole of May and June to go into all the matters which the hon. Gentleman has now put before us. As a result of the inquiry which the Secretary of State conducted, when the Bill was brought to another place, the Government, despite all that we have been told, still opposed the concession. They opposed it on 1st July when they must have had all the information that we have now been given. Why did they oppose it? What was the case against it? We have heard the case for it. What were the grounds on which the Government said that they were not going to give this concession despite all that was discovered? I do not know. I am entitled to know.
5.30 p.m.
If the case which has just been made was as strong as the hon. Member for North Angus has put forward, then surely it ought to have influenced his own Government. It did not. They still opposed it. But something else happened on 1st July. There was so strong a vote in another place by the Government's own supporters there that


the Government could not carry that part of their own Bill. In other words, the vested interests which the hon. Member for North Angus denies were out in force and were so strong that they almost carried the Amendment against their own Government. There was a tie.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Why does the hon. Gentleman keep saying "vested interests"? I ask him to believe that there was only one person who spoke in that debate in another place who had a vested interest, and he admitted it. It is not fair to go on talking about vested interests in another place.

Mr. Rankin: Am I to take it that the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are no vested interests in this business, no landlords who claim the right to own salmon, whether it is Irish or not? I do not know how they distinguish between an Irish and a Scots salmon, unless it is the accent or the place of birth. However, that matter is beside the point at the moment. The point is that the hon. Gentleman opposite does not deny that vested interests are concerned in the matter.
My recollection is that there were two noble Lords who declared their interest in another place. I think that only about six noble Lords spoke altogether. Two out of six is a fair representation. The important thing is the number which voted, and that number was sufficiently strong to cause the Secretary of State to carry out an even more intensive search into the circumstances of this industry. In July his inquiry was speeded up. During the last fortnight his Department has worked night and day in order to establish a case which the Government failed to accept in the previous two months. It shows how they can work when they want to.

Mr. Ross: They had nothing else to worry about during the past week or so.

Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend may think so; I do not know. For part of the time the Secretary of State was in Scotland. He must have been carrying his homework up to Edinburgh.
A very strange circumstance in the whole of this business is that, after two months of inquiry which the Secretary of State said that he would promote,

and which a few months ago in the House he said was intensive, he came to a conclusion which caused him to oppose the case put forward by the hon. Member for North Angus. Then on 1st July a vote takes place. Off come the jackets and the vests, and in they dig. They come to another conclusion, that the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite is a very solid one which they must support. They have been prodded from the rear, and the prodding has been done by those who primarily have a vested interest in the industry.
I should like to hear the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns or any other hon. Member deny the facts that I have stated. They stink. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Of course they do. The word "stink" is not out of order, I hope. I can hear mutterings from the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), and no doubt he will tell us something about salmon, too. If any case has been clearly established this afternoon it is that the Secretary of State came to a decision on the facts which emerged as a result of his intensive inquiry, that those facts did not please the vested interests that support him in another place, and that, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has come to the House with a different conclusion for which he is asking our support.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant) rose—

Mr. Rankin: The Solicitor-General must not be so impatient. Hon. Members opposite are a very impatient bunch. I will sit down in a minute or two, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to bob up and—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Solicitor-General for Scotlandrose—

Mr. Rankin: Wait a minute. I said that I would sit down in a minute or two. If the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps bobbing up and down like that he will prevent my sitting down.
All I am saying is that vested interests which support the Secretary of State have caused the change and that the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to agree to that change. Quite frankly, that is something I cannot do.

Sir David Robertson: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) referred to me in the course of his speech to the effect that I introduced an Amendment in the Scottish Standing Committee which was the first step in opposition to this Clause. The hon. Gentleman gave various reasons for his objections, as he did during the Committee stage.
I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that my Amendment was beaten by only four votes and that if the votes had followed the voices on the hon. Gentleman's side of the Committee it would have been carried. That is a statement of fact. The Scottish Standing Committee carried that vote, and if I had been quick enough off the mark, as the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. A. Woodburn) knows, I could have called upon the Chairman to declare the Amendment carried. The hon. Member for Westlothian (Mr. J. Taylor), who was the Labour Whip in charge, well knows the circumstances.
Someone from the Government Front Bench, presumably the junior Minister who is sitting here today, reminded hon. Members, after the vote had been called by the Chairman but before it had been taken, that if the hon. Members opposite voted for my Amendment they would be voting against the basic objection of their party to the Bill, which was that it meant less money for local authorities. These are the facts, and I am stating them now because the position today rather surprised me. At the time, hon. Members opposite seemed, in the main, to be in favour of my Amendment. I want to make that point entirely clear.
The statement made about the—

Mr. Ross: That is not true.

Sir D. Robertson: —big companies applies to a very small proportion of the industry.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member has said that in Committee the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House were in favour of his Amendment. That is just not true.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The question whether it is true or not does not arise now.

Sir D. Robertson: The issue was raised by hon. Members opposite who wondered

why this change had taken place. I was trying to make out—

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankinrose—

Sir D. Robertson: I will give way in a moment. I was trying to set out the circumstances which took place in Committee, but I have nothing further to say on that subject.

Mr. Rankin: The point I was seeking to establish is that the change has taken place in the attitude of the Secretary of State who is now contradicting what he formerly said.

Sir D. Robertson: That is a fact. That is not in dispute.
From a sitting position, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made some reference to the fact that what I said was not true. I ask him to consult his right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and his own Whip, and he will very quickly get confirmation of what I have said.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that we need consult anything but the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee. There was a Division, and if what the hon. Member said were true, the Government would have been defeated, and they were not.

Sir D. Robertson: I gave the reason. Had the votes followed the voices, they would have been.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think that the hon. Member is unwittingly misleading the Committee. When this vote was taken the Guillotine fell at ten minutes to one when the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John Macleod) was speaking, and as he was not allowed to proceed with his speech the Question was put from the Chair. There were some hon. Friends of mine who did not want the debate to come to and end and who said "No."

Sir D. Robertson: I think that the hon. Member is right in what he says about the Guillotine. I remember that, but I do not quite follow his point.
I was making the point that the suggestion that the big companies controlled this industry is not true. In Standing Committee I referred to the very large number of fishing stations around the coast owned by small crews of men. They are the farmers of the salmon fishing industry,


who rent the fishing from the proprietors. Of course, the Crown is the overwhelming proprietor. This is the only legal supply of salmon open to the public. It is mainly caught in stake nets anchored offshore, and these are not operated mainly by large companies; very much the reverse.
I submitted to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who was conducting the Committee, factual evidence which was collected from my own constituency in North-West Scotland and also from that part of Scotland represented by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. These men are hard hit. It is a fact, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), that year after year fewer salmon fisheries remain. The march of industry, the pollution of the rivers, the tarring of roads, and all kinds of other causes bring about unprofitable salmon fishing, and there are quite a number, not only in Fife but elsewhere, which, when put up for tender by the Crown, no one wants.

Mr. Willis: This is rather a different proposition from the one which we have just heard, namely, that these fisheries are losing money because of the burden of rates.

Sir D. Robertson: It is a fact that the rate burden is quite a heavy one on fisheries, but the bigger companies on the Tay and Tweed are better able to bear it. It is, however, a fact that the fisheries are becoming less and less, and many fisheries year after year are not let. I can confirm what was said by my hon. friend the Member for North Angus in regard to Fife. I have known twenty-four fishing stations. Johnsons of Montrose stepped in and took them because they were to let. Many had become vacant. There are now only twelve. I am stating something that I know to be true, that there has been this tendency for less and less fisheries to be carried on.
I should like to say one final word in regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). He referred at length to what took place in another place. His party had an opportunity of opposing in the other place. It did not do so. Why did it not do it? I submit that the strength of the case for

the salmon fishermen was so strong that that is the reason why it did not do it. That is why some hon. Members opposite supported my Amendment, some of them by their votes as well as by their voices.

Mr. Lawson: I think that some explanation is called for by myself because I am one of the two hon. Members on this side of the House who gave his vote in support of the hon Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). There were only two hon. Members who did so from this side, and that can be verified in the records. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland put his case very persuasively on that occasion. My hon. Friends had, as it were, this matter thrown at them. They had not very much time to think about it. Some of them were, perhaps, more than half persuaded, as I was, that the point put forward by the hon. Member was a sound one, namely, that if agriculture is to be treated in a certain way, fishing, which is not very different from agriculture, should be treated similarly. It was because of the hon. Member's own persuasive way of presenting his case that I and one of my hon. Friends voted with him.
Just as the Government can change their mind, I would suggest that hon. Members, having listened more fully to the argument—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

5.45 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958.
2. Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958.
3. Horse Breeding Act, 1958.
4. Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act, 1958.
5. Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958.
6. Statute Law Revision Act, 1958.


7. Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958.
8. Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (Amendment) Act, 1958.
9. Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958.
10. Local Government (Omnibus Shelters and Queue Barriers) (Scotland) Act, 1958.
11. Public Records Act, 1958.
12. Costs of Leases Act, 1958.
13. Variation of Trusts Act, 1958.
14. Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Act, 1958.
15. Local Government Act, 1958.
16. British Transport Commission Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
17. Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
18. Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
19. Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth) Confirmation Act, 1958.
20. Pier and Harbour Order (King's Lynn Conservancy) Confirmation Act, 1958.
21. South Lancashire Transport Act, 1958.
22. Penybont Main Sewerage Act, 1958.
23. Gloucester Corporation Act, 1958.
24. Coventry Corporation Act, 1958.
25. Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council Act, 1958.
26. Rochdale Corporation Act, 1958.
27. Ashton-under-Lyne Stalybridge and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Act, 1958.
28. Royal School for Deaf Children Margate Act, 1958.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments again considered.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 32, at end, insert:
(2) For the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and subsequent years the rights of salmon fishings to which this subsection applies shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be deemed for the purpose of making up any valuation roll to be agricultural lands and heritages:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any right of a district fishery board to require the assessor to value and enter such rights of salmon fishing in the valuation roll for the purposes of fishery assessments only.
(3) The last foregoing subsection—

(a) applies to rights of salmon fishing which are exericised by net or cruive and are so exercised reguarly throughout the periods during which that method of fishing is allowed by law, and in respect of which no revenue is derived by the owner or occupier thereof from any other method of fishing during any part of those periods; and
(b) does not apply to any dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, drying greens or other corporeal lands and heritages, whether occupied or used in connection with rights of salmon fishing to which the last foregoing subsection applies or not.

(4) Any dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, drying greens or other corporeal lands and heritages occupied or used in connection with rights of salmon fishing to which subsection (2) of this section applies shall, for the purpose of making up the valuation roll for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine and any subsequent year, be treated as lands and heritages which are neither industrial nor agricultural.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: When this matter came up in the first place before the Committee upstairs the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland argued his case very persuasively and received a great deal of sympathy from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Since then, however, there has been a lot of discussion backwards and forwards on this point. The matter was raised subsequently by a new Clause, when it was debated much more fully. On the second occasion as on the first it was rejected very firmly by the Government. On the second


occasion, at the very end, the spokesman for the Government, the hon. Member for Craigton (Mr. J. N. Browne) suggested that he would look at it again, but it was rejected very firmly.
Subsequently, it came before another place and was argued there and firmly rejected by the spokesman on behalf of the Government. When put to the vote, as we have heard, there was a tie of 24 to 24 and it meant that from that time the policy had been changed. I know how sincere the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is about this matter, but I would say to him that this House is having an Amendment imposed upon it by another place and I would object on that basis.
There are two other points which are very important. They have been dealt with, but I must repeat them. The concession which would be made by acceptance of this Amendment would be at the expense, not of the Government, but of local authorities—at the expense of the ratepayers. If there is a case for treating this kind of salmon fishing on the same basis as agriculture—and I agree that there was a case for it to be dealt with as agriculture is dealt with—it should be on the basis of Government assistance. If the Government could subsidise agriculture there is no reason why, if this industry is so vitally important, the Government should not give the industry a subsidy if it is required, but this concession would be made entirely at the expense of local ratepayers.
The acceptance by the Secretary of State of the suggestion made by local authorities that there should be some quid pro quo in terms of an increase in the general grant, as has been pointed out, could not benefit local authorities, except to the extent of coppers, and they would lose rates from salmon fisheries. The aggregate general grant could be increased but would not help poor local authorities which would have to give up substantial rates if the fisheries were treated in the way suggested by the Amendment.
Another point which I think would carry a great deal of weight with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is the question of rent. If it is so difficult to make a profit out of these fishings,

why should the rental be so high? If any concessions have to be made, why should not they be made by the landlord or the Crown, which in this case may be acting as the landlord? That seems to be the key point.

Sir D. Robertson: The rents are fixed in the fairest possible manner by a free tenant in a free society. They are put up when the leases fall in. There is secret balloting and those who offer the highest price get the fishery. There could not be a fairer system.

Mr. Lawson: When making this gamble and putting in a rent which will enable them still to make a profit, the rates to be paid should be borne in mind. If the rates are wiped out, the Crown and the landlord will benefit even more. The thought will be, "We do not have to pay rates so we can add a little more to the rental bid." The local authority would be losing rates and either the Crown or the private landlord would gain a higher rent. Much as I sympathise with the hon. Member and the many arguments he has advanced, I think that if he looks at it from this point of view he will see that there is a great deal of substance in the arguments advanced from this side of the House, arguments which have convinced me that my right course of action is to support my hon. Friends in the Lobby against this Amendment.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has covered some of the points in respect of rent. It is obvious that in making an offer a person would calculate that he would make a profit. We are being asked to subsidise someone's mistaken gamble. Someone has gambled and lost and we are asked to give a subsidy.

Mr. Lawson: We are not being asked to subsidise the loss, but the local ratepayers are being asked to do so.

Mr. Willis: We are being asked to subsidise to this extent. I asked the Secretary of State if the aggregate amount was to be increased to include this and he said "Yes". To that extent we subsidise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell pointed out that if this procedure were adopted and the aggregate general grant was divided in accordance with the Second and Third Schedules local ratepayers would be subsidising it. Then the argument would be valid.
We on this side of the House are equally anxious as anyone to provide employment for people in the Highlands, or anywhere else. It is not because we are not anxious to do that that we oppose this Amendment, but we think this is the wrong way of assisting and giving employment where probably it is necessary in certain cases.
What do we do here? We say that we will give a subsidy to all salmon net fishings in Scotland, whether or not they are profitable. They might be making very handsome profits, but they are to be subsidised. Surely, there is something wrong with that? I thought that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not believe in subsidies, in any case, but if they are prepared to sacrifice their principles to the extent of agreeing with subsidies, there is something wrong with giving a subsidy to salmon net fishing which can very well afford to pay its share of the rates.
What is really the kernel of the problem, apparently, is that these salmon net fishings, which, for various reasons, last year or over a certain number of years, have not paid their way or have made exceedingly small profits, are, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said, the right of the Crown. It is the Crown which decides the rents of these fisheries in practically all cases, because, by their very nature, they are conducted in the estuaries and round about, and not elsewhere; in other words, in Crown waters.
If that is so, surely, it is not beyond the wit of the Crown to say to the people concerned "You are losing money, and should ask for an adjustment in the rent". If we take the two cases quoted in another place during the debate referred to, one finds a rent, as my hon. Friend says, in the Sutherland and Beauly area, of £8,000. That is in the Dornoch, Beauly and Moray Firth area. Surely, it is not beyond the wit a the Government to devise some method of reducing that rent if it is too high, and if, in fact, people are losing money, without subsidising the whole of it.
I want to ask the Government a question about this. I do not think the Secretary of State was very familiar with this when I asked him the amount which was to be paid. I notice that he turned to the Joint Under-Secretary for informa-

tion, so I ask whether we might have the advice of the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland to interpret Clause 15 and to explain to the House how, in fact, the Government are to compensate local authorities for the losses which they suffer, bearing in mind what Clause 15 provides.
Clause 15 covers the transitional period, and this is the period in which, according to the Secretary of State, the local authorities are to be compensated for losses. Clause 15 says specifically that, after the first year, they must suffer one-tenth of their loss, and, thereafter, such percentages as the Government themselves may determine for the whole of the local authorities, and not simply those affected by the salmon net fishing. How is this to be done under the terms of Clause 15? I should like to know that, and probably the Solicitor-General for Scotland is the best person to give us an answer.
I should also like some assurance—because the Secretary of State did not appear to be very sure about this—that, in fact, these additional moneys that are to be provided to compensate local authorities will not be paid at the expense of other local authorities, but will come from the Treasury or somewhere else. In other words, in addition to the general grant already fixed under the Bill, there will be an additional sum from the Treasury to compensate them for their losses. We should have some assurance about that.

6.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If I reply briefly to the points raised, it will not be through any discourtesy, but because time is getting on. I will try to deal with the points that have been raised.
May I start with the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on the question of additional grants and how they will be divided? I quite agree that the additional money available will not go entirely in proportion to the authorities which lose under this Clause. We are all agreed on that, and there is no getting away from it, but the total amount available coming from the Treasury—and I could not give the figure to the nearest pound or even thousand pounds—will, broadly speaking, correspond in the aggregate to what the local


authorities will lose if this Clause is adopted. I want the House to be quite clear on that.
As regards compensation for loss, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East knows, Clause 15 deals with the transitional period, and deals with it on a very minor scale—one-tenth to start with and scaling up after that. In the first two years, that will certainly help local authorities, particularly between 1959 and 1961, when the scheme begins to operate. I should say that the Association of County Councils, which has brought this matter up, asked merely that the total amount of the general grant should be adjusted to take account of the losses of rateable value, and has not asked that there should be a proportionate allocation to fit into compensating any particular authority for the losses which occur.
Now may I come to the two main points?

Mr. Willis: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that subject, may I point out to him that this is quite different from what we were told by the Secretary of State, who said that the local authorities were not going to lose over this matter during the transitional period?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Collectively, they will not, within the odd thousand pounds or so, and that, I think, is what my right hon. Friend said.
May I now come to the two main questions which have been asked? The first is why have the Government supported this Amendment, and the second is why have they done it at this stage. I want to point out that the Amendment which we are now considering is a very different one from that considered in Committee upstairs, which was moved, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), for this reason. The derating which we propose to apply will apply only to salmon fisheries themselves, and not to the dwelling houses, bothies and drying greens.
Consequently, we have to remember that, having gone into the figures, we found, as my right hon. Friend said, that the salmon net fishings are rated on a very high proportion of their actual catch

and turnover. Indeed, if the Bill went through as it stood originally, that would be doubled, and the industry would be very heavily hit. This is not a novel or new matter. If I may go back sixty years, before either the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) or I were born, I can tell the House that, for certain purposes, in the 1890s salmon fishings were treated as agricultural subjects. I am not sure that it is not a very good thing to go back to what our forefathers did in those days.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State stated that when they did go into the figures, this was what they found. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look back to the speech delivered for the Government in Committee, when they asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment? It was said that the Government would consider it between then and Report stage. When did they get the figures, because this was not done on the Report stage?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I will be perfectly honest with the hon. Gentleman. As far as I recollect, we had the rough figures at an early stage, but we had the difficulty of sorting out the problem of allocating them between the salmon fishings proper and the bothies. I do not want to go into legal technicalities, but certain assessors have assessed the salmon fishings and the bothies as a single entity, and others have split them. Although we had a fairly broad view of the figures, it was not what I would call a very accurate one—I am being perfectly honest about it.
During the Committee stage, we had a broad view—I do not say that we had not—but, having got the broad view, and having looked at the question of trying to split the salmon rights proper as against the heritable property and so on, it was only at a fairly later stage that we could make a decision as to what ought to go into this Bill. That is why the Amendment came on at a fairly late stage. I would merely commend the Amendment to the House. I have a feeling that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it very much, but we all have our points of view. I have tried, briefly, and to the best of my ability, to reply to the points raised.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 174.

[Special Entry.]

Division No. 204.]
AYES
[6.21 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Ashton, H.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey


Atkins, H. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Barlow, Sir John
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nugent, G. R. H.


Batsford, Brian
Hesketh, R. F.
Oakshott, H. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim. N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Peel, W. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hope, Lord John
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Body, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pott, H. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, John (Test)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ramsden, J. E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hurd, A. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)



Channon, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Renton, D. L. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Robertson, Sir David


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, R. S.


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shepherd, William


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Keegan, D.
Speir, R. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Kershaw, J. A.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Kirk, P. M.
Storey, S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Drayson, G. B.
Leather, E. H. C.
Teeling, W.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Leavey, J. A.
Temple, John M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Eden J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Turner, H. F. L.


Fell, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finlay, Graeme

Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McAdden, S. J.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Foster, John
McKibbin, Alan
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gammans, Lady
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wall, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Glover, D.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Webster, David


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Green, A.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Woollam, John Victor


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Douglas



Grimston, sir Robert (Westbury)
Mathew, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.
Mr. Legh and Mr. Brooman-White.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, N.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Balfour, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Proctor, W. T.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Holmes, Horace
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, Frank
Holt, A. F.
Reeves, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Houghton, Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Hubbard, T. F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierlsy Hill)


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Chetwynd, G. R.




Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stonehouse, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cronin, J. D.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton, Marcus
Sylvester, G. O.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McCann, J.
Thornton, E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Timmons, J.


Dodds, N. N.
MacDermot, Niall
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McInnes, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McLeavy, Frank
West, D. G.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, H. J.
Messer, Sir F.
Willey, Frederick


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Foot, D. M.
Monslow, W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mort, D. L.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woof, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grey, C. F.
Orbach, M.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.



Grimond, J.
Owen, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.


Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.

6.30 p.m.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 39, after "shall" insert:
subject to the provisions of this section".—[Special Entry.]

In line 40, leave out "change" and insert "changes".—[Special Entry.]

In line 40, leave out "subsection" and insert "provisions of this section".—[Special Entry.]

In line 41, leave out "change" and insert "changes".—[Special Entry.]

In page 6, line 4, at end insert:

(6) Where any such corporeal lands and heritages as are specified in subsection (4) of this section, being lands and heritages occupied or used as so specified, are in any valuation roll in force at the commencement of this Act included in the valuation of the rights of salmon fishing in connection with which they are occupied or used, they shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, be so included in the valuation rolls for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine and the next following year, and subsection (2) of this section shall for the purposes of those years have effect in relation to them as if they were rights of salmon fishing to which that subsection applies."—[Special Entry.]

Clause 12.—(EXTENSION OF MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR REPAYMENT OF SUMS BORROWED FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 8, line 33, leave out "as defined in the Act of 1947".—[Special Entry.]

In line 35, at end insert "(b) the Cremation Act, 1902,".—[Special Entry.]

In line 37, leave out from "1947" to end of line 39 and insert:
(which relates to the provision of halls, offices and other buildings,)".

In line 42, leave out "or" and insert:
(f) section twenty-one of the National Assistance Act, 1948, or".—[Special Entry.]

In page 9, line 8, after second "years" insert:
and in the entry relating to the Cremation Act, 1902, for the words 'Twenty years' there shall be substituted the words 'Such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State;'".—[Special Entry.]
In line 13, leave out:
so far as relating to the provision of buildings for public meetings and assemblies".—[Special Entry.]

In Line 21, at end insert:


"Section twenty-one of the National Assistance Act, 1948.
Such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State."—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 25, at end insert:
(2) Where a local authority is authorised to borrow money for the purpose of any enactment, any provision (whether in that or another enactment) that any sum so borrowed shall be repaid within a period of fewer than sixty years, or within such period not exceeding fifty-nine or fewer years as the local authority or a Minister may determine shall be construed as applying only to sums so borrowed for expenditure otherwise than on the acquisition of land; and any sum so borrowed by the local authority for expenditure on the acquisition of land (being a sum to which any such provision as aforesaid would, apart from this subsection, apply) shall be repaid within such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State, or, where the consent of another Minister is required for the borrowing, by that other Minister.
(3) In this section "local authority" and "Minister" have the same meanings as in the Act of 1947, and references to the acquisition of land do not include references to the acquisition, with any land, of buildings or other works thereon, being buildings or other works required to make the land fit for the purpose for which it is required.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The provision as drafted distinguishes between the acquisition of a site and the provision of buildings and so forth on it. While the buildings remain covered by present Statutes, the cost of site acquisition may now be repaid over sixty years. The subsection refers only to services where the statutory borrowing period is less than sixty years.

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the said Amendment, in line 2—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. McInnes: In that case, may I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State a question? What we are dealing with here is the period of repayment of moneys borrowed by local authorities. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Lords Amendment, he will find that the acquisition of land is excluded from the general arrangement by which local authorities themselves or the Secretary of State may determine the period of repayment.
What I want to know is why the general arrangement was not applied to purposes such as the acquisition of land. What is the explanation for excluding land from the general arrangement in operation? I think the Joint Under-Secretary will appreciate that we want the local authority to enjoy the same freedom and privileges in respect of the repayments of moneys borrowed for the purposes of acquiring land. The local authority already enjoys freedom to determine the period of repayment in respect of moneys borrowed for purposes other than the acquisition of land. Can the Joint Under-Secretary give some explanation?

Mr. J. N. Browne: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, as to the buildings, or whatever may be on the land, the period of borrowing depends on the life of the subject. As to the land itself, it was thought right that the period should be one of 60 years, except in the case of land for the purposes of housing, where the period is 80 years.

Mr. McInnes: I am afraid that the Joint Under-Secretary is not seized of the point that I endeavoured to make. If he will look at the Bill he will find that the effect of the Lords Amendment is that


moneys borrowed by local authorities shall be repaid within a period of not less than 60 years, or within such period not exceeding 59 or fewer years as the local authority or the Minister may determine. In the case of moneys borrowed for the acquisition of land, the local authority has no power to determine the period of repayment. Why is that?

Mr. T. Fraser: Before the Joint Under-Secretary replies, may I say a few words? I think he said that the nature of the buildings put upon the land determined the period over which it would be reasonable to repay the moneys borrowed, but in respect of land, he said that the proposition was that the moneys borrowed should be repaid over 60 years. Surely that is not what the Lords Amendment proposes. Surely what it proposes is that the local authority or the Secretary of State may determine the period over which moneys borrowed for the buildings put upon the land may be repaid, but that in respect of moneys borrowed for the acquisition of the land the Secretary of State will sanction the period over which the moneys have to be repaid, such period being not more than 60 years.
He may sanction a period of five years. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the period in respect of land should always be 60 years. Surely local authorities sometimes buy land outright—small pieces of land on corners of streets and so on—and do not borrow the money at all. Surely it would be quite ridiculous to require, as the Under-Secretary suggested, that in all cases the money borrowed to acquire land should be repaid over a period of 60 years. I should have thought that the Lords Amendment does not make that provision but leaves it open to the Secretary of State to sanction a much shorter period.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The local authority will propose a borrowing period for land and my right hon. Friend will approve it if it is reasonable, subject to a limit of 60 years. I cannot read into this provision any more than the status quo, except that whereas the Statute at present says that money for land required for certain purposes shall be borrowed for only 40 years, it is now increased to 60 years.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

New Clause A.—(ABOLITION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "A":
—(1) For the purpose of abolishing certain requirements relating to local government administration and for making provision consequential thereon the enactments specified in the Schedule (Local Government Administration) shall have effect subject to the modifications so specified in relation to them respectively.
(2) This section shall come into operation on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.

New Clause B.—(AMENDMENT OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1946, s. 7.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "B":
B. Subsection (1) of section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946 (which subsection requires certain functions of education authorities to be exercised in accordance with schemes approved by the Secretary of State) shall have effect as if, in paragraph (a) thereof, after the word "Act", there were inserted the words "other than such voluntary part-time or full-time courses of instruction for persons over school age as the Secretary of State may direct".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Clause is to amend subsection (1, a) of Section 7 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, so as to require the education authority to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to some but not all of the functions described in Section 1 (5, b) of the 1946 Act in accordance with schemes approved by the Secretary of State. This gives effect to the provision for technical education which has been pretty fully discussed and is connected with the provision in paragraph 3 (3, a) of Part II of the Third Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I am not at all satisfied with that explanation, because this is not what we are doing at all. These words will have a familiar ring to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart). When he was Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, he came to this House in 1956 and wiped out the necessity for what the Government are


now asking us to approve in respect of voluntary part-time or full-time education. I should like an explanation of why this is found necessary. In 1956 we were debating a Clause which sought to remove the duty to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State schemes in respect of Section 1 (5, a, b and c) of the Act relating to further education. We were protesting that while the whole country was interested in the question of further technical education the Government did not seem to be paying much attention to it.
The hon. Member for Fife, East at that time said that it was impossible to get schemes. He said:
I do not know why the hon. Member should deliberately get this thing muddled up.
He was referring to myself
It is as clear as can be. For this particular branch of education, for the reasons which I have given, it has not in practice been found possible either for the authorities or ourselves acting together with the authorities to draw up a normal, formal scheme, such as we have with the primary and secondary. … So we have removed from the authorities that formal duty…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 552.]
Now in respect of certain unspecified parts in relation to sub-paragraph (3, b)—that is voluntary part-time and full-time education—he is reimposing the need for such schemes. He is now going to ask for something to be done which the hon. Member for Fife, East, when he was Joint Under-Secretary, said was impossible.
6.45 p.m.
I should like some explanation from the present Joint Under-Secretary on how this is going to be done. I should also like to hear from the Secretary of State. What they are doing is to say that we on these benches were right in 1956 when we opposed what they did then. We have to give careful attention to this complex new Clause to find out exactly what is proposed. I have an Amendment on the Paper, which I hope will be called later and will be accepted, to clear up the matter. The fact remains that Section 7 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, was amended two years ago in such a way as to remove the necessity for getting schemes in relation to this very thing, and we are now being asked to impose on the Secretary of State the

responsibility to call for schemes on unspecified matters relating to part-time and full-time education, I want an explanation of why what was done in 1956 and was taken to a Division, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite voting for it, is now being undone. Why are the Government retracing their steps today?

Mr. Rankin: The expression
voluntary part-time or full-time courses of instruction
is a very comprehensive one. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that it referred merely to technical education, but he was understating the case. That expression covers a very wide group of subjects indeed which form part of further education. It might take in cookery, dressmaking, public speaking, history, politics, economics—a host of subjects which are presently provided by local authorities throughout Scotland in their further education schemes. We do not want to consume too much time on this, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make the case somewhat more clearly than he did in his brief explanation.

Mr. N. Macpherson: By leave of the House, I should be very glad to do that. Quite frankly, I thought that the earlier discussions we had had on other parts of the Bill would have enabled hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to dispense with a more detailed description of what the Amendment does.

Mr. Rankin: It was not covered by salmon fishing.

Mr. Macpherson: I should explain that the Section it is proposed to amend will, if the Amendment be accepted, read:
The functions of an education authority under the foregoing provisions of this Act"—
That is to say, Sections 1 to 6 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946—
shall be exercised in accordance with schemes prepared as hereinafter provided and approved by the Secretary of State under section sixty-five of this Act, except where such functions relate to—
(a) further education as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection five of section one of this Act"—
This is where the words come in—
other than voluntary part-time or full-time courses of instruction for persons over school age as the Secretary of State may direct. …


Of course, this is related, as I said in introducing the Amendment, to the provisions for pooling the expenditure in the Third Schedule. Since the 1956 Education (Scotland) Act, we have, of course, started on a large expansion in the provision of technical education in the future, and we have also this Bill before us which provides for the pooling arrangements. In the circumstances, it seems desirable to give the Secretary of State powers to co-ordinate the expenditure. As has been explained earlier, if we are to secure free exchange of pupils and facilities between education authorities, it is highly desirable to have some degree of co-ordination both over the provision and over the finance.
It is true that, on the face of it, this Amendment would go further than merely the provision of technical education, but I wish to point out that the Amendment is limited to
such voluntary part-time or full time courses of instruction … as the Secretary of State may direct".
In other words, unless the Secretary of State directs, they will still be exempted. All I was trying to indicate in the very brief introduction I gave to the Amendment was that the intention is, at the present time, that the Secretary of State should require schemes for certain selected types of courses to be submitted to him, and those types of courses will be primarily those concerned with day-time technical education. I hope that the House will agree that this is a reasonable proposition to make. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is right in saying that we now require powers which we did not think we should require in 1956. But, of course, the thing to do is to be right at the right time. This is the time when we require the powers, and we are now asking the House to give us powers which we did not require in 1956.

Mr. Ross: But will the hon. Gentleman admit that he had the powers and that what happened did not happen in early 1956 but in October? He took away the powers he had, despite advice from this side. He is now coming back and accepting the advice we gave him then.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

New Clause C.—(INSPECTION OF MINUTES OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "C":
 .—(1) The minutes of—

(a) the proceedings of a local authority,
(b) the proceedings of any committee appointed by a local authority so far as such proceedings relate to any of the authority's functions under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or the National Assistance Act, 1948. and
(c) the proceedings of any joint committee or joint board established for the purpose of performing all or any of the functions of two or more local authorities under any of the Acts mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph.

shall be open to the inspection of any local government elector for the area of the local authority, or, in the case of a joint committee or joint board, the area of any of the local authorities represented on the joint committee or joint board, on payment of a fee not exceeding one shilling, and any such local government elector may make a copy thereof or an extract therefrom.
(2) In this section "local authority" and "local government elector" have the same meanings as in the Act of 1947.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is my Amendment in line 2 of the Lords Amendment last dealt with not being called? It is purely drafting, but it is very important.

Mr. Speaker: The first two Amendments on the Paper to the first Lords Amendment, in page 9, line 25, and to the third Lords Amendment in page 9, line 25 (New Clause B) are not selected. The third Amendment, that is, the one in the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and his hon. Friends, to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, is not necessary. He may disagree without such a Motion. As to whether an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will be called, he has an Amendment to the Lords Amendment in page 26, line 35, to leave out paragraph 2 of the New Schedule A.

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Amendment which stands in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in page 9, line 25, of the third Lords Amendment, would seem to be necessary to make the thing sensible. It


does not seem to make sense as it is, and my drafting Amendment would make the matter clear.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Further to that point of order. It might be for the convenience of the House if I explain that Clause 18 (4) deals with that matter.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the point is covered by Clause 18 (4) of the Bill.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause implements the proposals in paragraph 14 of the White Paper. The intention is fully consistent with the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to encourage local electors to take a greater interest in local government.
Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) requires, for the first time, the minutes of full council meetings to be made available on payment of 1s. to any local elector who wishes to read them, take a copy of them or take abstracts. Paragraph (b) does no more than preserve what is already a statutory right to inspect the minutes of the committees referred to. The reference to health, planning and welfare committees is necessary because the new Schedule which we have not yet discussed—this is referred to in paragraph 10 of the White Paper—abolishes the statutory requirement that these committees must exist as separate entities. Paragraph (c) ensures that the minutes of joint committees and joint boards dealing with health, planning and welfare, shall also be open to inspection.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 22, line 7, after "provided" insert "for".

Lords Amendment: In line 9, at end insert:
(d) in paragraph (7) the words 'in addition to any sums voted by Parliament for the training of teachers' shall be omitted;

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to repeal words in subsection (7) of Section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946,

which are no longer necessary in view of Amendments to the Section already provided for.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 31, at end insert:
(7) In section one hundred and forty-three, in subsection (1), for the definition of "code" there shall be substituted the following definition, that is to say—
'"code" means regulations made under subsection (8) of section one of this Act'.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to redefine the meaning of the expression "code" in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946. The meaning assigned to "code" in Section 143 (1) of the 1946 Act is a
code included in regulations under section seventy-one of this Act".
In future, the Regulations, which are known as codes, will depend upon the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by subsection (8) written into Section 1 of the 1946 Act by paragraph 6 (1) of the Fourth Schedule and by Clause 3 (2) in respect of the power conferred by Section 71 (1).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 8, at end insert:
and subsection (8) shall cease to have effect.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This deals with a provision referring to the Education (Scotland) Fund, and its abolition makes these words no longer necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 26, line 25, leave out "(d)" and insert "(e)".

In line 26, leave out "(7) and (8)" and insert "(8) and (9)".

New Schedule A.—(LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 35, at end insert new Schedule "A":

The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922

1. Section nine of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922 (which requires the councils of certain burghs to establish allotment committees) shall cease to have effect.

The Education (Scotland) Act, 1946

2. In section three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946 (which relates to the provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training), in subsection (1), the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.

3. In section twenty-five of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to contributions by education authorities to the maintenance of certain schools and institutions), in subsection (6), the words 'with the sanction of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect, and for the words 'the Secretary of State,' where those words secondly occur, there shall be substituted the words 'the education authority'

4. In section twenty-seven of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to educational research) the words 'with the approval of the Secertary of State shall cease to have effect.

5. In section thirty-four of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to exemption from school attendance) subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.

6. In section forty-five of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to the provision of transport and other facilities), in subsection (1), the words 'or as the Secretary of State may direct' shall cease to have effect.

7. In section seventy-four of the said Act of 1946 (which relates, among other things, to the examination of accounts of education authorities) subsections (2) and (3) shall cease to have effect:

Provided that this paragraph shall not have effect as respects accounts for any period before the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.

The National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947

8. In section twenty-two of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the care of mothers and young children), in subsection (3), the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.

9. In section twenty-seven of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness or mental deficiency and the after care of such persons), in subsection (3), the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.

10. In section fifty-one of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the duties of local health authorities under the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts), in subsection (3), the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.

11. The Fifth Schedule to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which requires local health committees to make the minutes of their proceedings available for inspection by electors) shall cease to have effect.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1957

12. In section one hundred and five of the Act of 1947, subsection (2) (which requires county councils and town councils of large burghs to have administrative schemes for the

discharge of their functions as local health authorities), subsection (3) (which requires county councils to have administrative schemes for the discharge of their functions relating to roads) and subsection (4) (which precludes county councils and the town councils of large burghs revoking administrative schemes approved under section fourteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, otherwise than by making another administrative scheme) shall cease to have effect and any reference in subsection (5) or subsection (6) of the said section one hundred and five to an administrative scheme shall be construed as a reference only to an administrative scheme relating to education.

13. Section one hundred and seven of the Act of 1947 (which prescribes the contents of certain administrative schemes required to be made by county councils and town councils of large burghs) shall cease to have effect.

14. Section one hundred and ten of the Act of 1947 (which requires county councils to appoint committees for the purposes of their functions relating to roads) shall cease to have effect.

15. Section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1947 (which relates to health committees required to be appointed by county councils and town councils of large burghs) shall cease to have effect.

16. Section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1947 (which requires county councils and town councils which are police authorities to appoint committees for the purposes of their functions relating to police) shall cease to have effect.

17. In section one hundred and fourteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of sub-committees of committees for administrative scheme functions) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection, that is to say—

'(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act a sub-committee of the education committee of a county council may consist of an extent not exceeding one half of persons who are not members of the council:

Provided that a person who is not a member of the council or of the committee shall not be appointed to a sub-committee except with the consent of the council.'

18. Section one hundred and fifteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of committees and sub-committees of county councils, town councils of burghs and district councils) shall have effect with the addition of the following subsection, that is to say—

'(3) Any committee appointed by a local authority under subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of the authority's functions under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or the National Assistance Act, 1948, may to an extent not exceeding one third of its membership consist of persons, not being members of the local authority, who have special knowledge or experience in regard to the functions for the purposes for which the committee is appointed.'

19. In section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the acquisition of land in advance of requirements) the words 'with the consent of the Minister concerned' shall cease to have effect.

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947

20. Part IV of the First Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which requires local planning authorities to establish planning committees for the discharge of their functions under that Act) shall cease to have effect.

21. In Part V of the First Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to sub-committees), in paragraph 1, for the words 'The planning committee of a local planning authority' there shall be substituted the words 'Any committee established by a local planning authority for the discharge of their functions under this Act'; after the words 'the committee' there shall be inserted the words '(hereinafter referred to as "the planning committee")' and for the words 'not less than three-fourths of the members of any such sub-committee which consists of more than three persons' there shall be substituted the words 'not less than two-thirds of the members of any such committee'; and, in paragraph 3, for the words 'a planning committee established under Part IV of this Schedule', there shall be substituted the words 'a committee to which paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule relates'.

The Local Government Act. 1948

22. In section one hundred and thirty-five of the Local Government Act, 1948 (which relates to instruction, lectures, etc., on questions relating to local government) in subsection (1), the words 'Subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe' shall cease to have effect.

The National Assistance Act, 1948

23. Part I of the Third Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which requires county councils and town councils of large burghs to establish committees for the discharge of their functions under Part III of that Act) shall cease to have effect.

The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956

24. Section two of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (which requires valuation authorities to have administrative schemes for the discharge of their functions relating to valuation) shall cease to have effect."

Line 41, at end insert:


"11 &amp; 12 Geo. 5. c. 58.
The Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921.
In section ten, in subsection (1), in paragraph (a), subparagraph (8)."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph 2.
Paragraph 2 removes the need for the approval of the Secretary of State in relation to the provision of facilities for

recreation and social and physical training. I raise this because the matter was covered partly in the 1956 Act which was piloted so nobly through the House by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart). When we expressed our concern that the Government seemed to be taking a light view of the need for further education and the provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training, within the context of the original Act, he produced a certain argument. The first thing to notice is that the provisions in regard to the facilities for recreation and social and physical training are applicable to primary and secondary as well as to the adult stages in the original Act. This is not something just for grown-ups; it is tied in with the ordinary education of children in the junior and senior secondary schools of Scotland.
At that time, the Government introduced an Amendment which meant that they did not require local authorities to provide them with schemes in respect of what they were doing in these matters. We questioned the wisdom of that, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State—he will find his words reported in column 1099 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1956—drew attention to this very phrase in the Section which the Government now say shall cease to have effect. He said that this was the great safeguard. The Government would know what was going on and would be able, if necessary, to spur on the local authorities to do this desirable work.
I want to know why the Government have now completely thrown over the former Joint Under-Secretary by drawing our attention to Section 3 of the Act and have now decided to remove the one thing that gave them the information about what was happening in this still very valuable field of education—not adult education this time, but primary school education and senior and junior secondary school education. I want to know from the Government exactly what has moved them to do this. They should give an explanation to the House for this very considerable change of mind.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: This Bill has had a very difficult time and a very chequered history. It has caused a great deal of trouble to the Committee upstairs and has raised certain difficulties of principle about which many of us feel keenly. If Manchester wonders why the Bill has taken such a long time to get through the House, the Corporation of Manchester has only itself to blame.
There is no doubt that if we refer to the principal bone of contention in the Bill—that is, the letter written by the Town Clerk of Manchester to the shareholders—

Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to take technical points, but is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise matters on Third Reading which are not dealt with in the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was speaking by way of introduction and saying that the Bill had had a difficult time. I was waiting to see whether he strayed beyond the contents of the Bill. The hon. Member, of course, ought to direct his speech to the Question. "That the Bill be now read the Third time" rather than say whether there is something in the conduct of the Bill of which he approves or disapproves. I do not know whether the hon. Member is speaking in favour of the Bill or not.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I was not proposing to make a long speech. I merely felt that I ought to say something about the Bill as one who represents a constituency in the County of Chester, which is next door to Manchester, and as one who represents people who feel very keenly about what has taken place. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that I must not develop those matters in detail, and, therefore, I do not propose to do so. I do not think it is out of order to say that the Bill could have been disposed of long ago if

Manchester had so wished and made the necessary apologies for what had taken place. Having said that, I do not propose to try to hold up the Bill any longer.
Other people are concerned with the Bill besides the Corporation and bureaucracy of Manchester. A great number of things in the Bill are very important for the benefit of the citizens of Manchester who cannot necessarily be held responsible for everything that their own bureaucracy does. That being so, I certainly shall not stand in the way of the Bill receiving a Third Reading. I do not know what the rest of my hon. Friends will say about it, but I shrewdly suspect that that is the line that they will take. However, I think that it ought to be made clear to Manchester that we consider that any difficulties that they have are their own fault.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: We have just listened to a wonderful speech by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). To begin with, I think that he was on the wrong premise altogether when he was dealing with the letter which you. Mr. Speaker, quite rightly I think, ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have not ruled it out of order. I think that it is in order on the Third Reading of a Bill to advance any valid and relevant reason why the Bill should not be read a Third time. If there is something in the Bill embodying a transaction of which an hon. Member disapproves, he is entitled to urge it up to a point. I think it is a reason against giving a Bill a Third Reading if that be the hon. Member's view.

Mr. Williams: I, of course, accept your interpretation with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, but I must remark that the hon. Member must have had a tinge of conscience because he dropped the matter so quickly.
There has been a good deal of talk about the bureaucracy of Manchester, to which I take strong exception. This is not a question of bureaucrats trying to do something which is not proper for their own city or people. In my opinion, the officials and the Corporation of Manchester have been much maligned for no good purpose or reason. I do not, however, wish to develop that point any further other than to try to clear the good


name of the Manchester Corporation and its officials of what I regard as an unnecessary and unreasonable attack by an hon. Member representing an adjacent constituency. Some of us think that we know the reasons for his action and the action of some of his colleagues, but it might be out of order if I were to develop that matter too much.
I should, however, like them to know that some of us have a fair idea of what all the trouble is about; and it certainly is not the Ardwick cemetery. I feel sure that not even the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) would regard the Ardwick cemetery as a proposition which might bring in 2s. or half-a-crown by inviting visitors to inspect it.
Whatever differences may have occurred between hon. Members and some from Manchester on this Bill, I certainly think that we should make a serious mistake if we delayed the Third Reading in view of the important and urgent projects which are included in the Bill. I think that the Ardwick cemetery project is the smallest possible of all the projects which are under consideration. I was very surprised when I discovered that of all the great controversial matters that could be argued in the Bill hon. Members had to choose such a dead subject as the Ardwick cemetery and make such a fuss about it.
Some of the projects in the Bill are not only important to the people and business and commercial interests of Manchester, but they are also important to the townships which are adjacent to Manchester. They are also important from a national point of view as well.

Mr. L. M. Lever: They are important to Britain.

Mr. Williams: Yes. I repeat that it will be a serious responsibility on this House if it rejects the Third Reading and defers the commencement of some of the major schemes and projects which will bring so much benefit, not only to Manchester as a city but to that part of industrial Manchester which is so necessary today to the industrial, scientific and technical development of the affairs of this country.
Part III of the Bill deals with two such important major projects. The first is the construction of a link road which will be

the first section of a major highway network for the city. The road is designed to carry traffic from the docks and industrial areas in the west of the city to the east and south of the city without passing through the heavily congested centre of Manchester. I should have thought that hon. Members representing adjacent constituencies would at least have realised the importance of the project. I should have thought that hon. Members who are interested in the commercial and business life of Manchester, many of whose directors live in their constituencies, would have been very keen to ensure that this Part of the Bill would not be delayed in the House.
Anybody who knows Manchester very well, as do several hon. Members opposite, will know what the congestion is like in the centre of the city. They will know what the delay is to traffic and the hours of labour and vehicles which are lost to the city and to its businesses and people as a result of the congestion. Here is a project which will go some way to relieve that congestion and to economise in vehicles and man-hours in that great commercial centre. I should have thought that some of these considerations would weigh heavily with hon. Members opposite when considering the Bill. I am afraid, however, that they have rather allowed other issues to cloud their normal good judgment.
Another scheme under Part III of the Bill which is extremely important is the project whereby the Manchester College of Science and Technology can be enlarged and extended. Some of us are very proud indeed that one of the finest technical colleges in the country is situated in Manchester. We believe that that college will not only be a great asset to Manchester and to the large industrial area for which it caters, but will be of great benefit and importance to the country as a whole. I believe that the Minister of Education is solidly behind this project, which will make it easier for more students to be accommodated in the college and will result in accrued knowledge of scientific matters, of benefit not only to Manchester, but to the whole country.
My information is that unless this second part of the scheme is agreed to, the enlargement and extension of the college will not be possible. I hope,


therefore, that hon. Members on both sides who are interested in the development of scientific and technical knowledge will join with us tonight in securing expeditious treatment of the Bill so that work on this important project can be commenced in the very near future.
It would be tragic if the Bill did not receive its Third Reading and the House were to go on, possibly, a three months' vacation, with resultant delay to the necessary work on the commencement of these two projects. I sincerely hope that every effort will be made to pass the Bill tonight. I know that there are hon. Members opposite who may have legitimate grievances against the Bill, but I ask them to consider carefully the simple issue of whether the benefits which accrue from the scheme as a whole are not much greater than anything that they can derive in the form of pleasure or otherwise at the deferment of the Bill tonight.
The House of Commons is rather on trial in regard to the way in which it deals with Private Bills.

Mr. H. Lever: And private reputations too.

Mr. Williams: A number of people—we might as well be honest and frank—consider that our procedure is antediluvian and is not up to the modern requirements of the day. Many corporations are wondering whether they can afford to spend thousands of pounds in promoting a Bill to benefit their citizens when it can be torpedoed and wrecked at the whim and fancy of a few individuals who have no direct contact whatever with the corporation or city in question and whose interest in the matter is at times very doubtful.
This House must, therefore, be most careful about how it deals with some of these issues. The feeling already exists in Manchester that this has been delayed too much, that some of these schemes should have been proceeded with long ago and that normally, had we acted reasonably and rationally, they would already be being dealt with. The Bill could have had its passage through another place in time for the corporation and the other bodies concerned to have been working on the schemes now.
There are other projects and schemes in the Bill which are of peculiar interest

to Manchester. I refer to some of the projects dealing with backyards, the lighting of habitable rooms and matters of that nature. My own view is that these are only temporary measures. They ought to be temporary measures. I would like to invite some hon. Members opposite to come to some part of my constituency or of other constituencies in Manchester to see whether they would be as pleased as some of them are over the rejection of the overspill projects concerning Manchester. I believe that these can be only temporary measures. I sincerely hope that before long some of these old houses, which are not fit for human beings to live in, will not only have something done to their backyards, but will disappear from the horizon of Manchester.
I appeal to some of the hon. Members who represent adjacent constituencies to think of people living in some of the hovels in Manchester when they consider such matters as overspill and other projects. We cannot retard progress all the time. Men and women will not stand for the retarding of these things for long. If we have much more of the antics which we have had on this Bill or on some of the other things, desperate things will happen in Manchester as a result of the conduct which we have recently experienced.
We can do no better than accept the advice given on Report by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in what I regarded as an excellent speech. When I compared that—

Mr. John Mackie: I intervene in no sense of hostility. Should there be a Division tonight, as I said the other evening when discussing the Bill at a former stage, I shall vote in favour of the Corporation. I resent, however, some of the remarks made by the hon. Member about opposition to the Bill. He is in danger of threatening the House with what may happen in certain conditions. I resent that, and hope that the hon. Member will make his position clear.

Mr. Williams: I am glad that we have at least one convert for the Division Lobbies, and I welcome the fact that he will come into the same Lobby as myself. I am sorry that the hon. Member regards what I have said as a personal threat. I repeat, however, that things cannot go on like this in Manchester very long


without serious disturbances concerning some of the projects with which Manchester has for many years tried to proceed, but on which it finds opposition from many quarters. Men and women cannot stand the strain of that for long. All I would do is to warn the House and the hon. Member that if we do not carry on much better with some of the work which is put to us and show a little more human sympathy from one part of the country to another, men and women will not be prepared to stand it much longer.
I was saying before the hon. Gentleman interrupted me that we can do no better than accept the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He said the other day that he hoped nobody would jeopardise the passing of this Bill, and he added that nothing had been said on Report which had convinced him that anybody had a legitimate reason for opposing the passage of the Bill. I think he was right, and I compare his speech very favourably indeed with that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I think it was an excellent speech and that it represents the point of view of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the view of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. It should represent the point of view of the Minister of Education, and I am certain that it represents the view of every progressive-minded Member of this House.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I should like, first, to express my pleasure at the inclusion of the new subsection (2) of Clause 44 referring to the much discussed question of compensation for the shareholders of Ardwick Cemetery Limited. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know whether that subsection will give the safeguards which it is intended to give. I should have preferred that it had excluded altogether any reference to the sum of £2,100 and had left it, in the case of a dispute, to an arbitrator to decide what amount should be paid.
I am somewhat concerned that the chief official of a great and famous Corporation, almost as great and famous as that of the City of Liverpool which I have the honour to represent—

Mr. L. M. Lever: What a comparison.

Mr. Pannell: My local patriotism is no less than that of hon. Members who represent the City of Manchester.
I am concerned that the chief official of such a city should be held guilty of an impropriety in an offer to purchase the shares from the Ardwick Cemetery company. There are other matters which perturb me as a result of this question.
It is stated that the Ardwick Cemetery company could not obtain a disclaimer because the City of Manchester might intervene in any court proceedings. I cannot help feeling that there is a suggestion of the big stick, that the company was told it had better accept the terms offered and that the Corporation, with its unlimited resources, could embark on litigation which would cause most of the assets of the company to be swallowed up.

Mr. H. Lever: Will the hon. Member support that assertion by saying where such a threat was made, when and by whom?

Mr. Pannell: I think the threat was implied in a remark by one of the officials when he said that the expenses—I am speaking from memory—would depend on the amount of determination with which the Corporation prosecuted its case.

Mr. H. Lever: Will the hon. Member who is making this assertion kindly give chapter and verse for it?

Mr. Pannell: Yes, if I may detain the House while I search for the reference for which the hon. Member asks. It is in the report by Mr. H. R. Page at the request of the City Council. He stated:
Much depends on the degree of determination with which the Corporation and other parties would contest the application for leave to disclaim …

Mr. L. M. Lever: That is an honest expression of opinion regarding legal proceedings.

Mr. Pannell: I hope the hon. Member will give me the credit of believing that I am expressing an opinion honestly in this matter.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I have no doubt of it.

Mr. Pannell: The suggestion that the Corporation was wielding the big stick still remains in my mind.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: The quotation which the hon. Member has just made refers to
the degree of determination with which the Corporation and other parties
might proceed. Surely that suggests that if either side went in for litigation the costs would go up. Surely that is different from saying that the Corporation was wielding a big stick?

Mr. Pannell: I think that that is fairly implied. [Interruption.] I do not wish to give way again. Hon. Members may have the opportunity of catching Mr. Speaker's eye and of developing their own arguments.
I think it is clearly implied that if the company had sought to disclaim the land it would have met with opposition from the Corporation and that the costs would have eaten most of the assets of the company. I think that is clearly implied in the brochure explaining the position and of which hon. Members have copies.
The Corporation had made its plans, it seems to me, rather carefully, to build a school adjacent to the cemetery, no doubt with the idea of using the cemetery ground as a playing field.

Mr. Eric Johnson: My hon. Friend is inaccurate in saying that the Corporation had just built the school. It had been there for years.

Mr. Pannell: I concede that my hon. Friend may have more accurate information than I, but according to my information the school was built within the last two years—perhaps by a fortunate coincidence—adjacent to the cemetery.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: On a point of order. Is it right Mr. Speaker, that an hon. Member should mislead the House? Honestly, he does not know the strict position. The school has been up for more years than I can remember.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about the facts of the matter, and that certainly is not a point of order for me. I would suggest to the House that we should make better progress if hon. Members made speeches and fewer interrupt-

tions, which merely draw out our proceedings.

Mr. Pannell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is perfectly clear that the Corporation sought this adjacent cemetery for the purpose of a school playing field. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I think that that is beyond dispute. It therefore approached the company and asked the company what offer it would accept for the sale of that land. The directors said that they would require the sum of £2,000 and that they would abandon the land entirely to the Corporation for that amount, retaining such securities as they possessed. This was rejected by the Corporation, in my opinion on insubstantial grounds.
The Corporation brusquely dismissed the question of any value attaching to the land leased by the Ardwick Cemetery company to certain individuals. This land was bringing in an income of some £250 a year and notice had been given to the lessees of an increase in rental to operate this year of £310 in all. I think it is wrong for the Corporation to assert that those leases had no value. It cast some doubt on the legality of the leases, but it is quite clear that the cemetery company had for many years enjoyed the leases. It was quite clear that the Corporation, in taking over that land, would continue to enjoy them. It is inconceivable that the Corporation would try to invalidate a claim to its own property. Therefore, the Corporation could enjoy the income of £310 a year from that land.
In my view, that would give that land for the Corporation a capital value of not less than £5,000. We are told that the securities in the possession of the cemetery company were valued last December at £3,800. We do not know their value today. We assume that it is no less. That is a total of £8,800 capital assets which the Corporation would take over on acquiring this land. It offered in return the sum of £2,100, which gives it, according to my calculation, a net gain of £6,700.
What we have to decide in this connection is the value of the land to the Corporation for the purposes for which it intends to use it. We are told that from the commercial point of view it is worth £7,000 an acre. There are 4·2 acres


which represent a value of roughly £30,000. The land cannot be used for commercial purposes but it has that value to the Corporation, and the Corporation is prepared to spend £21,000 on converting it. If the Corporation had a sum of £6,700 in hand from the assets acquired, the cost of converting the land into a playing field would be £13,300 to the Corporation. Had the Corporation acquired the land for commercial development, if that had been possible, the cost then would have been £30,000.
In acquiring the land for a net sum of £13,300 after conversion into playing fields the Corporation would pay a price which is said to be fair from its point of view, but my only concern is whether a great and powerful Corporation, with unlimited resources, has applied undue duress on a company with meagre resources to acquire a piece of land at less than its value to the Corporation. Doubts on this point still remain in my mind. I hope that hon. Members will help me to resolve those doubts before the Bill is given a Third Reading.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Manchester City Council and its officials are to be congratulated on at last having introduced the Bill. Those who know Manchester know that many Bills of this character are urgently required to do justice to the teeming millions who live in that area. Manchester, relatively speaking, makes as great a contribution to the economic needs of the country as any part of this land. One would have thought, therefore, that there would have been no opposition to proposals of the kind contained in the Bill.
The object of the Bill is to enable improvements to be made in the living conditions of people in the area. Its purpose is described in the text as, among other things,
To authorise the lord mayor aldermen and citizens of the City of Manchester to construct street works …
These are among the most urgently required street works in the country. I have travelled in Europe and I have seen no place where improvements are more urgently required than in that part of Manchester in which so many of us have spent our lives.
The other object of the Bill is to enable the Corporation to purchase land com-

pulsorily for certain given purposes. Some of us have played our parts in both the First and Second World Wars and yet we find at this stage that a huge city like Manchester has to come before the House of Commons and plead that it should be enabled to carry through urgently required improvements of this character. A further elementary proposal in the Bill is to make provision for improving the health of the people. Surely these are most reasonable propositions which should command the support of every hon. Member.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Members present who do not know the gentleman will accept it from me when I say that the Town Clerk of Manchester is one of nature's real gentlemen.

Mr. L. M. Lever: An honourable gentleman, too.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He should not be subject to the things to which he has been subjected during the proceedings on the Bill. I admit that we can all make mistakes, but I learnt early in life that if a mistake is made the best thing is to admit it. People then admit that a man is big and has a big approach to questions, and due allowance is made. This was done in this case and one would have thought that instead of statements of the kind that we have heard being made about this gentleman an attempt would have been made to understand the background against which this matter which is now in dispute came about. Instead, this man, who is looked upon in Manchester as one of the most conscientious officials, has been subjected to these criticisms. He has a long record of public service which should be upheld as a model to be followed by the young men who are now coming along. We should have held him up as a good example to others rather than subject him to the kind of comments to which he was subjected a few weeks ago.
If all this is regarded jocularly by some hon. Members, I hope that they will say so. We believe in the cut and thrust of debate in the House of Commons, and some of us have been brought up in that atmosphere. If hon. Members differ from me in my references to that gentleman I hope that they will say so, in order that we may have any misunderstanding on the subject removed. Our case is so strong and clear that we welcome any


criticism. Since no one has intervened, I take it that every hon. and right hon. Member present agrees with me in my references to that gentleman.
As a result of the way in which Bills of this kind are dealt with, it has been my lot to have a great deal to do with the Chairman of Ways and Means and his staff and the staff of the Private Bill Office. I have had a fairly long experience and I have met people in all walks of life, and I want to pay tribute on Third Reading of the Bill to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I have known several Chairmen of Ways and Means of various political parties. I have known no more conscientious holder of that office than the present holder. So much work and negotiation are done behind the scenes that it is the duty of some of us to give the person involved a pat on the back occasionally to encourage him in his work. In view of the fact that the present holder of the office intends to retire, I feel that we should place on record our appreciation of his services. I apply my words about him equally to the seniors on the staff of the Private Bill Office.
I am pleased to have been allowed to digress slightly because I have had a guilty conscience on this matter for twenty years. Three or four Parliamentary giants turned down the North Staffordshire Transport Bill twenty years ago. On that occasion I blamed the Private Bill Office. I was wrong. The people there were real, honest gentlemen. It was the political giants who were wrong.
On page 3 the Corporation, to its credit, is at last including a Clause which has for its object the incorporation of Lands Clauses Acts, and further on the Bill deals with the need to take over certain lands. As I said earlier, this is being done only after two world wars in which many of us played our part in saving the land.
On page 9, Clause 19 authorises the Corporation to carry out the development of land. Anyone who knows the Liverpool Street and Quay Street area will realise that this should have been done fifty years ago. Clause 22 gives the Corporation power to provide and use an exhibition hall. Anyone who has seen the exhibition hall which runs parallel with Liverpool Street will realise that it is in such a state of disrepair that it is nearly falling down. If there is any criticism of

the Manchester Corporation it is that it has delayed so long that the hall is practically in ruins before it asks for power to build a new one.
In Clause 23, on page 11, there is a proposal to authorise the Corporation to have power to construct works dealing with Medlock Street, Downing Street and other similar streets. If you knew those areas, Mr. Speaker, and saw the way in which people have lived there for generations, you would agree with me that this Bill should not have been subject to the criticism that has been levelled at it. The only criticism which could be made is that the work has been delayed so long.
Then in Clause 27 we come to the river of ink; not the Blue Danube that we sing about but the Black Irwell. It is one of the blackest rivers in the world and ought to have been dealt with long ago. Then on page 19, Clause 33 deals with artificial lighting in habitable rooms. It was my privilege to serve my time in one of the most efficient and best known industrial establishments. There we worked providing electric traction and electric lighting for the world, but not for our own use in Manchester. At last—let me emphasise "at last"—the Manchester Corporation is taking power to insist at least that artificial lighting shall be provided in habitable rooms. And this is 1958.
Clause 36 concerns precautions against fire in certain buildings. Manchester is the capital of the north. We hear a great deal about London. We hear a great deal about Wales and Scotland. But we do not hear enough about the industrial north, nor do we hear enough about the capital of the north. But at last, in this Bill, the Corporation is taking power for fire precautions.
My next point, Mr. Speaker, is put to you in particular. I have a fair knowledge of Private Bill legislation. In the past, whenever an authority has promoted a Bill and has been the subject of vexatious expense, application has been made to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has consulted Mr. Speaker and the authorities, and there are cases on record in which a financial allowance has been made. In this instance, if anybody has a grievance it is the Manchester Corporation and the citizens of Manchester, who have been put to the needless expense of promoting this Bill and


of bringing their people down here on several occasions. Whilst we are the first to agree to any necessary democratic procedure, we say that there is a limit and that if it was right to compensate people in the past who were subject to vexatious treatment when promoting Private Bills, then on this occasion the Manchester Corporation should receive the same consideration.
Finally, I hope that any hon. Members who may still be inclined to be prejudiced against the Bill or who dislike the way it was dealt with in Committee will ventilate those grievances. However, let us give the Bill its Third Reading so that the Corporation can get on with urgently needed work and do justice to its citizens.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: As you know, Sir, and I think the House knows also, hon. Members who were members of the Committee which considered this Bill were unable to speak in the House during the time when there was a possibility that the Bill might be referred back to the Committee. There is no longer any question of that and this enables us to say one or two things which we think ought to be said.
I will start by agreeing with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), when he said that there were many valuable Clauses in the Bill and that it would be a pity if it were not given its Third Reading. Hon Members who had this Bill before them in Committee will agree that the Bill has valuable Clauses in it, otherwise we would not have passed it in Committee. These Clauses will be of value not only to Manchester but to a much wider area, especially those dealing with road traffic. I hope, therefore, that the House will decide to give the Bill its Third Reading.
If the House rejects the Bill we would not be punishing the people who have erred but the ratepayers of Manchester; people who have done no wrong. To do so would put them to considerable further expense, and they have had enough expense in connection with this Bill already.

Mr. H. Lever: The hon. Gentleman has referred to people who have erred. In what respect is he suggesting that people have erred?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am suggesting, for example, that an error has been committed by an offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. That is a purely objective statement and I am not trying to be controversial. I feel that we do not want to punish the ratepayers of Manchester, and therefore I hope we shall give the Bill its Third Reading.
I will come at once to the controversial Clauses, those dealing with the Ardwick Cemetery Co. The Committee which considered the Bill was guided by four pieces of evidence which were brought before it. The first was that Manchester sought to wind-up the cemetery company, a company registered under the Companies Acts, without going through the procedure laid down in the Companies Act. The second was that the Board of Trade said that the break-up value was in excess of the £1 which Manchester was offering. The third was that the Town Clerk of Manchester said that there was a liability, which he estimated at £3,100, to put the cemetery in repair. The fourth was that counsel for Manchester Corporation said that there was no liability such as the Town Clerk had suggested.
That therefore eliminated from the minds of Members of the Committee the evidence of the Town Clerk that there was a liability to put the cemetery in repair. We were thus left with two salient pieces of evidence, that Manchester sought to wind up the company without going through the procedure of the Companies Acts, and that the Board of Trade said that the break-up value was in excess of the £1 being offered. With that evidence the Committee decided to put things right for those people who had not parted with their shares, which is why we have the Clause which the Committee put into the Bill. We did not, however, put things right for those people who had already parted with their shares, but since that is not in the Bill, it would be out of order to discuss it. If Manchester feels that it has been badly treated, as some Manchester Members appear to believe, then it has only itself to blame for the way in which the case was presented to the Committee, which was completely objective on the subject.
The Bill which we are now discussing on Third Reading is a very different Bill from that which Manchester originally deposited before Parliament. It is to the Bill as deposited that objectors could make objection. The Bill changed shape considerably between that time and the time when it came before the Committee as a filled Bill. It is true that some of those changes were made to meet points raised by objectors, but that did not apply to all the alterations. The Committee therefore found it necessary to protest to the promoters and to point out that if negotiations had been begun at an earlier stage with the interested parties, before the Bill had been presented to Parliament, possible objectors would have had a fairer opportunity of seeing what the Bill was with which the Committee would be presented. In this way they would have had a fairer opportunity of presenting their case and objecting if they saw fit.
I personally, and I am sure all hon. Members, deplore the fact that we are having a Third Reading debate on this Bill at all. This House is a very forgiving place to anyone who says that he is sorry, and I hope that it is not even now too late for Manchester to earn the goodwill of the House by doing just that.

7.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams)—that is a fortunate constituency—entertained us at some length with his reference to the recent inquiry at Lymm. I did not see that that had very much to do with the Bill, but an allegation was made against our fair County of Cheshire that we did not wish to provide Manchester with the necessary land on which it could house its overspill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That does not come within the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: It does not come within the Bill, but, with respect, the hon. Member referred to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that it is out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I referred to it only because the hon. Member did, but I will now return to the Bill.
I regret that the Amendment to Clause 44 which was so eloquently proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) was not accepted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now discussing something else which is not in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I am not too happy about Clause 44 and the assurances which were given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, but I hope that our fears are unjustified.
It has been insinuated that because of the objections of myself and some 100 hon. Members who put their names to my Amendment, "That the Bill be considered this day three months", we are responsible for the delay in the passage of the Bill. With great respect, nothing could be further from the truth. The people alone responsible for the delay in the passage of the Bill are the Manchester Corporation. I know that many hon. Members, although they would be the last to admit it on the Floor of the House, will agree with what I am about to say. It is said that the House of Commons is the toughest audience in the world. One thing is also certain: it is the most generous audience in the world. The House will forgive anybody practically anything if he says that he is very sorry and if his apology is frank, full and sincere.
If only the Manchester Corporation had had the grace to apologise it would have got this Bill a long time ago. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with what I have said. I regret the delay in the passage of the Bill which I submit was not my fault nor that of the 100 hon. Members who put their names to my Amendment.
We all know that this is a very important Bill for Manchester. It is also important for the surrounding districts. For that reason I shall not oppose the Third Reading, and I hope that my hon. Friends, however much they may regret and resent the fact that there has not been an apology tendered by Manchester City Corporation, will agree with me and not cause any further opposition.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: The argument in this matter has been so well deployed that I shall not weary the House


with repeating it, but I feel that some of the remarks made today have not been very helpful and that even now we could have proceeded very much more quickly if those remarks had not been made.
It is on occasions like this that Parliament performs one of its best functions. It is perfectly proper and perfectly right that it should operate as it is intended to operate, as a check on matters which it has reason to believe have not been undertaken as properly and as correctly as they should have been.
One or two hon. Members opposite have been understandably keen to defend the Town Clerk of Manchester. I do not deprecate their attitude; I have no doubt that the Town Clerk is a very admirable servant of Manchester. But nobody can always be 100 per cent. Some hon. Members of this House would not like to claim that they are always 100 per cent. None of us is 100 per cent. But to put this master in shades of absolute black and white, to adopt the attitude that because we object to something that happened we are putting the Town Clerk in the black and therefore hon. Members opposite must immediately rush to put him in the white, begs a large number of questions. Unhappily, this attitude has been responsible for some of the delay that has occurred.
Mistakes were made. One has only to read the speech which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made on Report—to which no hon. Member objected—to realise only too well that that is the case. Nevertheless, some hon. Members today insist that they were not made, and there has been a certain amount of chastisement of some of us, in the form of an agonised reading through pages of what we have all agreed is an excellent Bill, as if we were opposing all the provisions. Of course we are not; we are merely objecting to the fact that certain procedures were followed which, in our judgment—and we are the custodians of our own judgment in these matters—were not the best and fairest means to use, and were not matters which Parliament should allow through on the nod.
If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) had not been in such a hurry to move the Closure on Report the Bill would in all probability have been disposed of then. On that

occasion some of us were prevented from speaking; in fact, very few of us had an opportunity to do so. To suggest that we have unduly delayed the matter is not fair to those hon. Members who could not speak on that occasion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We must also bear in mind that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was provoked by what he overheard.

Mr. Hirst: I am sorry about the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. He is very often provoked. He must learn to contain himself a little more if we are to carry out the democratic procedures of this House as we would wish to do.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have been doing so for about twice as long as the hon. Member has.

Mr. Hirst: I have no ill feelings towards the hon. Member; I merely suggest that he delayed the matter.
I do not want to delay the House. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has said. His was a very fair speech, made from an objective standpoint, and it contained a great deal of what is in my mind.
Many provisions of the Bill, particularly those in Clause 44, would have been better rewritten and re-enacted in a more favourable way, but it must be accepted that a good deal of water has gone under the bridge, and that it would not be fair to Manchester to insist upon any such re-enactment. The only way in which we could achieve that object would be by throwing out the Bill, and, although it is not perfect, I join with my hon. Friends in saying that we have no desire to do that.
We shall not, however, apologise for taking the opportunity of expressing ourselves fully. This is not merely a matter of what Manchester wants or does not want; it is a matter of principle, which may affect other Bills coming before us in a similar way. Although Parliament may do well to let the Bill through on this occasion—and it has been amended by some excellent work in Committee—the fact remains that it still has a slight blemish. I hope that people will realise that so that we shall not have this trouble again.
Like my hon. Friends, I believe that it would not be unbecoming to Manchester


if the Corporation were a little more gracious and forthright; if it recognised that this House has its duties, that hon. Members have to perform those duties and that the House is justified in expecting some remarks from the Corporation which could be taken as an apology.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I rise with a certain diffidence, because I am addressing a mixed audience upon a non-party matter. I hope every hon. Member is fully aware that this is not a party political matter, and the fact that I happen to be speaking from these benches does not make it one. All the Members who represent Manchester constituencies are united in desiring that the Bill shall receive a speedy passage through the House.
Many criticisms have been directed at the Clause which deals with the purchase of the shares in the Ardwick Cemetery. I am always ready to believe the sincerity of the motives of hon. Members. Some hon. Members have said that a soft word by the Manchester Town Clerk or the Corporation would have turned away their wrath. They think that some sort of apology for the error committed—if one was committed—would be timely. I must take full responsibility for the fact that no such word has as yet been forthcoming. The only error which any fair-minded person can allege against the Town Clerk or Corporation of Manchester is that there has been an infringement of a Section of the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act—an infringement which amounts merely to the fact that the Town Clerk sent out a circular offering to buy these shares without using a licensed dealer or himself becoming a licensed dealer for the purpose of that Act.
In view of the sustained and very misleading oratory of some hon. Members who have made much play with the title of the Act under which the Town Clerk is said to have committed an offence—the prevention of fraud—it cannot be made too plain that, upon the findings of the Attorney-General himself, the only thing which any honest and fair-minded person could allege against the Town Clerk is that, not being a licensed dealer, he sent out this circular offering to buy the shares. By posting a nominal

sum to the Board of Trade he could have made his office boy a licensed dealer and sent out a circular, in which case he would have committed no offence.
I would have had no difficulty in getting the Town Clerk of Manchester—who has asked me to say that he accepts exclusive responsibility for the legal advice tendered to the City Council—to tender to the House an expression of apology for any misjudgment or error which may have occurred in relation to this technical infringement, but in the light of what I have heard from some hon. Members and of the very careful study that I have given to the whole matter, I could not conscientiously tender on behalf of the Town Clerk an apology which would in any sense be construed as justifying the sneers and imputations which people today are most unfairly and under the Privilege of the House making against Manchester's senior official. I say that with the fullest sincerity.
Every Member ought to realise that the defamation of a person who cannot take action because the defamation occurs in this House discredits that individual Member and is an abuse of the Privilege of this House. I would have nothing to say if those hon. Members had been careless of their own reputations; after all, they are the best judges of how much care those reputations warrant. But I am very concerned about the reputation of this House. Every repeated abuse of its Privilege is bound to reflect upon the very high traditions which the House has in this matter.
I am not among those hon. Members who regard as other than a coincidence the fact that the leaders of this campaign to besmirch the name of the Town Clerk happen also to be the chief opponents of Manchester's overspill housing developments. I am prepared to believe that that is a coincidence and that those hon. Members are speaking with complete sincerity, but I wish they would limit the amount of their defamation. If a man is honestly, though reluctantly, doing his duty in this House by assailing the reputation of a senior public official, I should have thought that once would be enough, but some hon. Members seem to find what to a decent person would be a disagreeable task—even if it were justified—to be a pleasant occupation.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: That is not a good speech.

Mr. Lever: In this transaction of taking over the shares there is no justification for any allegation of unfair dealing, of impropriety or dishonest concealment of facts from the shareholders. In fact, to show the amount of carelessness with which the Privilege of this House has been used, I take the case of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). I will say nothing of his outrageous assertion that his own native city is to be compared with that which, with other hon. Members, I have the honour of representing in this House, but he was inaccurate in his reference to the Bill. For instance, he suggested that Manchester Corporation owed an apology in that it had unfairly obtained these shares by threatening the shareholders that if they did not part with them for the sum offered they would be in trouble.
When I asked the hon. Member to document that charge he referred me to the Treasurer's report, in which the Treasurer had said that the cost of disclaimer would depend on how vigorously the Corporation and others intervened in the matter. All that would be very well as some sort of substantiation of his rather comprehensive charge but for the fact that by the time the Treasurer's report to which he referred was compiled, the shares had already been bought. The circulars had already been sent out and the only person who could be influenced by that report would be someone like the hon. Member who is anxious to find some stick, however fragile, with which he thought he could beat the Town Clerk and Manchester Corporation and make these allegations.

Mr. N. Pannell: The suggestion I made was that in their negotiations with the cemetery company the Corporation suggested that the costs of litigation would be such in the event of the Corporation intervening on a disclaimer as to swallow up most of the assets of the company. If that doubt is dispelled, I am very happy to withdraw any suggestion of impropriety.

Mr. Lever: I take it that the hon. Member means to say that although he mentioned the Treasurer's report as justification for the charge, he no longer relies on that as justifying the statement he has made. What he said was that the

Treasurer's report amounted to a threat to the shareholders which induced them to part with their shares. That statement is simply unfounded.

Mr. N. Pannell: Mr. N. Pannellrose—

Mr. Lever: I am not going to keep giving way, because the hon. Member will see the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. He justified the assertion against the propriety of the behaviour of the Corporation and the honesty of its behaviour by quoting from the Treasurer's report and said that it had bulldozed the shareholders into accepting, but the Treasurer's report was written in June, 1958, long after the shareholders had settled and long after the notice to treat with the Corporation had been sent.
That is what has gone on at all stages of this Bill. Even the Chairman of the Committee made complaints in connection with this Clause in the Bill. He said, for example, that an additional Clause was brought in of which the Committee could not approve, but that Clause was brought in—

Mr. Arbuthnot: I did not say it was an additional Clause of which the Committee could not approve.

Mr. Lever: Perhaps I misheard, but I understood that the complaint was that an additional Clause had been brought into the Bill by which the take-over was altered. The Clause was drafted on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The hon. Member complained that the Corporation had done something unfair in that it had shown an intention not to comply with the Companies Act. I do not know what the hon. Member means by that. After all, he must be a fairly responsible person or the House would not have trusted him with the chairmanship of the Committee in this matter. I will give way readily to the hon. Member. What does he mean by that expression?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Having studied this Bill with some care, the hon. Member knows quite well that the report of the Board of Trade made it quite clear that the proposals, if they had not been amended, would possibly have prevented the shareholders having the protection to which they were entitled under the provisions of the Companies Act.

Mr. Lever: I understand the hon. Member imagines that the absence of that protection would in some way affect the matter today. I understand that he thinks in some way it would affect the protection of shareholders who have already sold their shares, but by the time this was brought into consideration the overwhelming majority of the shareholders had sold their shares to Manchester Corporation.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Not knowing what the break-up value was.

Mr. Lever: I am not suggesting that the hon. Member is not anxious to be honest and fair in this matter, but his complaint is that Manchester Corporation was not going to give itself the benefit of the Companies Act. By the time the hon. Member had charge of the matter the Corporation overwhelmingly was the principal shareholder. Today the Corporation owns almost every share in the company. It does not matter whether the company is wound up under the Companies Act or otherwise, because the only persons who need to be protected in a situation such as this are the creditors. The Companies Act is to protect the creditors and to see that they get the assets. I should say to any hon. Member who doubts that and thinks the Corporation is going to make off with the assets and default should come to me and get a little insurance on the matter at very reasonable rates.
That sort of spurious, artificial complaint about the Corporation has been made over and over again. There is not one shareholder in this company who has sold his shares to the Corporation and authorised a single one of these sneers at the Corporation or its officials—not one—in spite of the most shameful publicity which this matter has had. These charges have been megaphoned abroad. After all, we in this House are able to form our own opinions of the weight to be attached to statements made here partly upon the nature, character and standing of the hon. Member making them, but the public outside reading these things in the newspapers are apt to take seriously the kind of statements and the kind of people whose words are not regarded in this House as carrying any undue weight and great damage has been done. These things ought to be said.
To hon. Members in this House to whom these remarks do not apply I wish to say this. I went very comprehensively into this matter, as did every hon. Member who spoke in the debate and who had taken the trouble to inform himself. On the last occasion, we spent some time in debating it. I said then that I had no sympathy at all with any hon. Members on this side of the House, or on the other, who imputed motives to those hon. Members who insisted on ventilating this problem and rightly judged it their duty, as watch dogs, to see that no corporation, however large and however reputable, should be able to railroad a Bill through the House if it was unfair. Far from criticising anyone who has performed that function, I would respectfully say he is fulfilling his proper duty to the House and to the people who sent him here, irrespective of the fact that this Bill contains other valuable Clauses which he would like to see in it. I am making no sort of slur on those hon. Members who came here to inquire into the matter and to bring it to the notice of the House, but what I am saying is that the repetitive enjoyment of defamation is not to the credit of hon. Members who have indulged in it and that is quite another matter.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Are they going to apologise?

Mr. Lever: Everybody has talked as though it is a proven fact that the Town Clerk of Manchester has committed an offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Frauds (Investment) Act which, as I have said before, is ten times more technical than a parking offence, for reasons I have already explained to the House. But I thought that in this House we were not in the habit of convicting people without a trial. I have been outraged at the way every hon. Member who thought fit to do so has felt entitled over and over again to say that the Town Clerk has committed an offence. Of course, they are not qualified to say so. They have no authority, even on the statement of the Attorney-General, to say so. It is against all traditions of fair play, especially as we expect them to be observed in this House, to judge a man guilty of an offence on which he has never been heard and on which he has never been tried. I must enter this objection, with respect to the learned Attorney-General. This Section is a most complex one. Hon. Members,


with legal training will know how complex and difficult it is to construe and to apply the rules for the construction of Statutes. Perhaps laymen too can have an amusing hour or two with it. But it can be argued whether any infringement of this Section has occurred at all.
We are all agreed that this is a valuable Bill. Those of us who believe that the matter has been fully investigated and that the purchase of the Cemetery shares has been honourably conducted and undertaken are quite satisfied. Those who feel that they were entitled to raise this matter have also been satisfied. I say, as sincerely as I can, that I know of no impropriety or unfair dealing or any suggestion against the Manchester Corporation or its senior official; save only that there might have been this infringement of the description which I have already given to the House. Because of the useful things in this Bill, I ask the House to leave aside all the considerations which have been more than fully ventilated and to give the Bill a Third Reading.

8.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I have no desire to curb this debate—

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member is the only one.

Mr. Bevins: —but I think it would be helpful if I said a word at this stage. When I was younger, it was a commonplace in Lancashire to refer to "Manchester men" and "Liverpool gentlemen" and as I—

Mr. H. Lever: The hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way around.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not mind that.

Mr. Bevins: —belong to the second category, I shall resist the temptation to discuss whether Manchester or my native city is the "capital of the North". I shall also resist the temptation—because I wish to keep within the bounds of order—to say anything at all about overspill.
I wish to emphasise, that every hon. Member has participated in the debate has declared that he hopes this Bill will secure a Third Reading. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said he hopes that this Bill will become law without undue delay. That is certainly

the hope of my right hon. Friend. I think it right that I should once again put to the House, however briefly, the views of my right hon. Friend who, after all, is interested not only in cemeteries in general and in Ardwick Cemetery, but in the other matters which are dealt with in this Bill. I will mention one which was referred to by the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams).
An essential part of the programme for the Manchester College of Science and Technology is the diversion and culverting the River Medlock. The Manchester Corporation is anxious to do this work on behalf of the college while it is constructing the new ring-road, and any delay in dealing with the River Medlock will result in a corresponding delay in the development of the college. It seems to me that any such delay would be deplorable. That is the view of Manchester. It is the view of the Government, and I believe it to be the view of the House of Commons as well.
The Manchester Corporation hopes to acquire the site of the Ardwick Cemetery and convert it into playing fields for the use of a nearby school. There is general, if not, perhaps, universal support in this House for that proposal. There are a number of old cemeteries throughout the country which are now closed. Very often their conversion into open spaces for playing fields would seem to be the best way to deal with them. My right hon. Friend hopes that other local authorities contemplating such a course will not be frightened by the rather choppy passage of the Manchester Corporation Bill.
The storm which has blown up here has not been caused because of the purpose to which Manchester proposes to put the cemetery but rather because of the method by which the Corporation sought to get control of this site. The letter from the Town Clerk to the shareholders has been referred to this evening. No one disputes that this letter constituted a contravention of Section 13 of the Prevention of Frauds (Investment) Act of 1939. But the Director of Public Prosecutions decided, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General concurred, that the public interest did not require him to prosecute.
The point which has caused most anxiety to hon. Members is the suggestion that the Corporation bought up a


large proportion of the shares in the Ardwick Company on the strength of a misleading letter which gave a false picture of the financial position of the company. The House will remember that the Select Committee came to the conclusion, on the evidence before it, that a one-sided view had been presented and that the position at a break-up had not been disclosed. Subsequently there was a very thorough police investigation which showed, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General
… that there is no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of the material facts. Consequently there are no grounds for a prosecution for an offence under Section 12 of the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 77.]
I do not really think that it would be proper for the House tonight, on Third Reading, to enter into an even more detailed discussion of the financial implications of this matter, but I should like just to say this. The Manchester Corporation is, undoubtedly, one of the largest and one of the most influential local authorities in the country—

Mr. L. M. Lever: In the world.

Mr. Bevins: All local authorities, whether they are powerful, like Manchester, or less powerful, like hundreds of others in the country, have a very serious responsibility to set an example in public conduct. Of course, they make mistakes—we all do—but the important thing is that they should always act in good faith towards their citizens, both collectively and individually. It is because my right hon. Friend believes that that standard has not been transgressed by the Manchester Corporation, and because, moreover, this Bill is a worthy one in itself, that we very earnestly hope that it will be accorded a Third Reading.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The House is indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for the very clear and frank way in which he has dealt with the one matter in this Bill that is really in dispute. As one who, as chairman of a great local authority, had to promote several Bills before this House, I may say that no local authority should complain about

the meticulous examination of its Bill by a Select Committee of the House. After all, a Clause may go through—perhaps not even much stressed before the Committee—and, two or three years later, another Corporation or county promotes a Bill, and puts in the same Clause.
When it is disputed, the first defence of the promoters is that it is only a copy of the Clause that was granted to someone else two or three years previously. Steadily it goes on until, at last, either the Minister of Health, in the old days, or, as I imagine, the Minister of Housing and Local Government in these days, brings in some kind of Public Health (Amendment) Act, and that Clause, having been granted to a dozen or twenty local authorities, is embodied in general legislation. Therefore, there can be no complaint of the meticulous examination of this Bill, and the meticulous attention paid to the way in which the transactions under it have been carried out.
Certainly, as one keenly interested in local government, and in seeing corporations, counties, urban district councils and other people getting Bills through the House, I do not think that we have any real ground for complaint on that score. It does seem to me, however, that the explanation tendered has been quite ample. The Committee discharged its duty, the Clause was amended, and in that amended form is now in the Bill, which has been commended by the two Government Departments concerned on the previous stage of the Bill, and, tonight, by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Of course, we all like ragging the chief official of a big corporation. I have done it myself. I have even done it in regard to a council of which I have been the chairman. But there is a limit to the extent to which that should be carried on. To my mind, the explanation tendered has been adequate. I think that some attention might be given to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) said; that if the junior office boy had been appointed a licensed dealer, and the appropriate authorities had been informed that the corporation was behind him to the extent of a couple of hundred pounds, and he had issued the circular, no complaint could have been made. I do not suggest that any corporation should


descend to that technical way of avoiding responsibility, but it is an indication of the extent to which this matter ought to be flogged any further.
This is a Bill that has in it a very great deal of good. It will enable at least one great cemetery—and it is a great cemetery, when one remembers the people whose bodies are there interred—to be put, in these days, to a use in which, whilst the revered dead are honoured, the living—the best of the living, the youth—can also get the benefit of an open space that has been almost accidently preserved; and can get some inspiration from the memorials that, I hope, will be appropriately left to the great people who lie within this small but very important cemetery. I hope that we can now feel that this Bill can be given a Third Reading, that any error that was committed has been more than adequately punished by the language that has been used by some people in reprobating it, and that Manchester can get on with the numerous developments that will spring from the passage of this Bill through this House.

8.36 p.m.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: I must first declare my interest in the Bill, as a member of the Corporation of Manchester and as one of the "bureaucrats" as we have been labelled. I do not feel in the least like a bureaucrat, nor is that the way that we conduct our business in Manchester.
One feels some regret about the length of time which the House has taken to consider the Bill, and the great delay that it has meant to its complete passage. I do not think I need repeat the number of things which are waiting to begin operations. They have been enumerated so often.
It is regrettable that a certain Clause in the Bill has been discussed by so many people who have not a complete knowledge of the conditions as we in Manchester have. It seems that because of our generosity we have landed ourselves into this difficulty. We thought we were being generous, because we knew the conditions, and we probably rather precipitated the procedure, but any evil intent was the farthest thing from our minds, and should be farthest from the minds of those who conduct a big corporation.
If there was a slight infringement, as was suggested in the reply of the Attorney-General, I would have thought that in view of all the indignities and, indeed, suffering which the Town Clerk had to undergo on our behalf—because, after all, this Bill has been approved by the Manchester Council consisting of members of all parties—the verdict which has been given by the Attorney-General should be satisfactory to hon. Members. While admitting, of course, that we are entitled to examine all the matters involved, I should think that it is less than democratic for one voice to halt the progress of something which has already been examined, delaying what could help nearly 700,000 people, that being the size of our population.
I feel that all this has been flogged very hard and that there is no need for any further whipping of the type that we have experienced in this Chamber during the last debate and this one. I plead with those people who may still have some small doubt to believe that a corporation the size of ours, far from being the octopus which many people seem to believe it is, and far from being comprised of bureaucrats, as we have been labelled, has a very great regard for the people who live in that great city. We are most anxious to give better conditions to many people in that city and to provide those things to which the Bill relates. I hope that after all this there will be no further acrimonious feelings and that Manchester will be able to get on with its Bill, because we have barely time.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I support what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House on this very important Bill. I was very pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government intimate, as he did on a previous occasion, that the Government were supporting the Bill. Having said that, I think the opponents of the Bill ought to withdraw their opposition because their own Government are prepared to give Manchester Corporation the Bill that it desires.
Having listened to the previous debate as well as to tonight's debate, I have begun to think that we are living in two


Englands—one represented by hon. Members coming from vast sweeping acres of woodlands and green fields, and the other represented by those speaking on behalf of the Manchester City Corporation, representing an area which is cribbed, cabined and confined, and that when the occupants of that area wish to release themselves from bondage by promoting a Bill they find themselves up against great opposition.
I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly—I believe rightly—that there has been too much vendetta and vindictiveness not only against the Manchester Corporation but against the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk—and I speak with some experience of municipal administration—only carried out the instructions of the Manchester City Corporation. Having carried out those instructions, I do not see why some Members should criticise him for doing his duty. Here is a gentleman, one of the best in the country, whose prestige is high, regarded as one of the finest town clerks in municipal administration that this country possesses. Yet he is subjected to this vendetta and vindictiveness. I hope it will go forth from this House that we admire the organising and administrative ability of a great man like the Town Clerk of Manchester.
While listening to the debate, I have been thinking also of a passage in the good Book which tells of a time when one of the great prophets, confronted by a problem put to him by his people, went to a great Authority, and when that great Authority said to him:
'Go thou and sit where they are sitting,' and he went and sat where they sat.
His opinion of the problems confronting the people was totally different after he had experienced what they were experiencing. If the opponents of the Bill, after all they have said and all the criticism they have levelled at it, would go to the City of Manchester and sit where some of the people of that city are sitting they would withdraw their opposition and concede the Bill.
To my knowledge the authorities of that city have been struggling for years, long before I came to the House, to try to improve the social and industrial conditions of their people. Who could say one word against improving the social

conditions and industrial amenities of the city and its people? Let it never be said in this House that we are party to preventing the opening up of places to provide pleasure for children.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to the purpose underlying the promotion of the Bill. What was it? It was to enable Manchester Corporation to make provision for playing fields for its children. Let us remember that a generation has been denied them. When I became chairman of my local education committee, a position which I occupied for 7½ years, an old veteran said to me, "Always remember, Tom, that the children pass this way only once. If you fail to do your duty for them as they pass this way, the opportunity will be gone for ever".
The Manchester City Corporation desires to purchase the cemetery in order to establish playing fields and to improve the social environment of the people in the area, and we ought not to object. I respect the opinions of those who are opposed to the Bill. Although they are totally different from mine, I respect their opinions and I want them to respect mine. In my view, the time is long overdue when Manchester should be free from the fetters which have hung rounds its neck for half a century or more. Let it go forward with the work it has set itself to do. Let it never be said in this House that by our opposition or criticism of a Bill of this kind we were responsible for preventing the children of Manchester from having a fair deal and social justice in the improvement of their amenities, which are long overdue.

8.46 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I feel very diffident in seeking to intervene in this debate, for two reasons. In the first place, I did not speak during any of the previous stages of the Bill. That was not my fault; it was the fault of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). In the second place, I had felt that this was purely a domestic matter for hon. Members representing constituencies in Manchester and nearby. However, on that, I should like to say that we in Nottingham suffered recently from exactly the same sort of problem as did Manchester, namely the problem created by one of these commercially owned


cemeteries. Moreover, we may well suffer from another in the near future. It is very likely that what Manchester does today, Nottingham and other places similarly affected, may have to do in the near future.
I know that I should be out of order if I started, as I should like to do, by talking about the cemeteries in Nottingham. Perhaps I might say that the cemetery I was referring to there was first formed in 1836—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the cemetery in Nottingham. It is not in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: The Ardwick Cemetery, like so many other cemeteries, was established in the middle of the last century when all these commercial cemeteries began to spring up in our large industrial towns. In those days, they probably fulfilled a very useful function. Indeed, to many people, they may have seemed the only alternative to what would then have been called, perhaps, a pauper's grave. In the years which followed, however, many commercial cemeteries became some of the worst examples of private enterprise which we have ever seen.
As you have so ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I may not go into the history of the Nottingham cemetery, but it was not unlike the history of Ardwick Cemetery which we are now considering. As I understand the position, the Ardwick Cemetery Company made very large profits in the early days, as most such cemeteries did. People were buried as close together as possible. Masses of plots were bought up in the early stages. Large sums were paid out in dividends. I think I am right in saying that, for many years during the second half of the last century, dividends of 25 per cent. were paid by the Ardwick Cemetery Company. In some years, 100 per cent. was paid, but it seems that very little money was put by for reserve to maintain the cemetery in the days when its normal source of income would have dried up.
The stage has now been reached when the years of profitability of many cemetery companies are coming to an end. Whereas in Nottingham the Corporation refused to take over the cemetery, in the Ardwick

case the Corporation was not only willing but anxious to do so. We have had a good deal of discussion about the estimated value of the shares, but I should like to say that from what I have been able to understand from studying this case and from my own experience in Nottingham, I believe that the amount offered, £1 for each share, was fantastically generous.
We have already heard, and I must not detain the House by going over them again, most of the reasons why some of us feel that that is so. There is the reason that on the only recent occasion, six years ago, when a valuation was made for probate, 5s. was accepted by the Inland Revenue. There is also the fact that if the company had gone into liquidation and obtained a disclaimer, then after allowing for the costs of the court proceedings and compensation, there would I feel, from our experience in Nottingham, have been little left. The court proceedings there amounted to £1,750. There was also the very cogent reason that practically all shareholders, with expert advice, jumped at the offer.
There is one other reason which I should like to give and which was not, I think, mentioned in earlier debates. I am sure that it is absolutely wrong to estimate the value of the shares in a company like the Ardwick Cemetery Company without considering the obligation of that company to maintain its cemetery. Why on earth should a company of this sort be allowed to retain its liquid assets and distribute them as it likes when it leaves its cemetery in a condition that amounts not merely to desecration, but a lack of proper sanitary conditions?
I feel that there is a definite danger that the attitude that the Board of Trade felt it right to adopt in this case may encourage certain cemetery companies whose life of profitability is drawing to a close—there are many in that position now—to get rid of their remaining assets in the form of dividends to renounce their obligations and simply ignore the future of their cemeteries.
I hope, therefore, that no hon. Member on either side will deny this very valuable Bill a Third Reading in order to champion what I feel is the undeserving cause of these commercially-owned cemeteries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Lever.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Before my hon. and gallant Friend sits down, may I ask one question—

Hon. Members: He has sat down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever).

8.54 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I am sure that we are all grateful for the contribution of the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux), which was full of knowledge and experience.
The Bill, as has been rightly said, is of the greatest consequence to the City of Manchester. I happen to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which this much contested Ardwick Cemetery is situated. I can assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House that all the people in my constituency and all the people in the city are wholeheartedly in support of the proposal which the Corporation has set forth in the Bill. To any unbiased person, this cemetery in its present condition constitutes a real eyesore in an already congested part of Manchester where, as has been said, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), thousands of people are in great need of rehousing and amenities which will give them a lung where nothing but smoke and stench obtain at present.
This is one of the results of the Industrial Revolution and of the way in which the city and its centre, not least in Ardwick, is constructed and in which the people have to suffer. Every day of the week, people come not only to the town hall, but to myself as their Member of Parliament, asking when they will have more open spaces, where the children can play and when they will be re-housed. I have patiently to assure them that I am gently pressing their case at the town hall. These applications have come in such torrential numbers that they make one truly frustrated because of one's inability adequately to deal with them at the necessary speed.
The Bill gives opportunities of developing land in the centre of the city. It is a very fair Bill. Hon. Members have spoken about the payment to the shareholders of the Ardwick Cemetery,

but nobody has mentioned certain of the Clauses of the Bill. By Clause 16, for example,
The Corporation may enter into and carry into effect an agreement or arrangement with the owner or occupier of any land acquired under this Act with respect to his reinstatement elsewhere.
That shows a concern for fairness and justice to those who may have to be moved as a result of the Clause.
Clause 17, which is another example of generosity on the part of the Corporation, provides that
The Corporation may pay to any person displaced from any building acquired under this Act and carrying on a trade or business therein such reasonable allowance as they may think fit towards the loss which in their opinion he will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business in consequence of his having to quit the building.
To my knowledge, throughout the years—and I have been a member of the Manchester Corporation for nearly 27 years—whenever these clearances have taken place the Manchester Corporation has been most generous to businessmen and householders who have been affected by any transfer from the area. No mention has been made of the fairness of the Bill in this respect.
Clause 31 deals with urgent repairs of private streets. Clause 33 deals with the question of artificial lighting in habitable rooms. Clause 34 deals with the repair of walls, etc., of yards. Under the existing law, a landlord can be compelled to do the repairs of the interior of a house, but there is no power to compel him to repair a backyard wall, thereby, perhaps, leaving a house completely exposed at the back with all the dangers that arise in such conditions in a closely congested area.
By Clause 35, we are to register persons engaged in the destruction of rats or mice. This has no reference whatever to any of the circumstances which have arisen in connection with the Bill, but is a measure to ensure that the destruction of rats and mice is in the hands of properly accredited persons.
Clause 36 deals with fire precautions. There are Clauses dealing with underground garages and providing opportunities for traffic to move more easily in Manchester in accordance with the requirements of not only one of the most important industrial cities in the country


but one of the most famous throughout the world for its pioneering zeal in local government activity and in commercial advancement. I say, therefore, that on all scores the Bill should be read a Third time.
I speak quite sincerely as one who is normally fair in his associations in politics, business and his profession, but I must say that some of those who have spoken today have done so in terms which are not fair to the Town Clerk of Manchester, Mr. Dingle, who bears a most honourable name in the city, in his profession and in local government service throughout the country. Last year I was Lord Mayor of Manchester. I am the only Lord Mayor in the history of the city who was at the same time a Member of Parliament. During my mayoralty I had personal experience of Mr. Dingle's tremendous kindness and of the painstaking efforts he makes for the benefit of our citizens. The Bill is one of the fruits of his anxiety to translate the Corporation's policy into effective practice for the benefit of the people.
The Psalmist says that those who sow in tears reap in joy. Manchester on this occasion reaps in tears, but I hope that the city and its citizens will reap in joy in days to come through the passing of the Bill and that other authorities, like that of Nottingham, which make a fine contribution to our national life, will have the fruits of the suffering which we have borne in the course of the passage of a Measure which means so much to the future of our great city.

9.3 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I shall not detain the House very long because I think that the debate has gone on for far too long already, but I wish to clear up one or two small matters. We all realise the great importance of the Bill and most of us agree with the greater part of it. Those of us who disagree with a small part of it recently created a good deal of hard feeling during the recent debate on Report.
It was not a party matter in any way, and I wish to make it quite clear that what we said at that time and what we say now is not in criticism of the clearing up of the cemetery, which very much needed doing a great many years ago. It was entirely a question of the Companies Act, the taking over of the shares

and the making of a suitable offer for them in the right way. I have seen the cemetery, and I entirely agree that it needs to be cleared up.
I confess that I did not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) when he said that it was merely a technical error that such an offer for shares was not sent through a licensed dealer or stockbroker and that the Town Clerk's office boy could write and obtain such a licence for the cost of a postage stamp.

Mr. H. Lever: I did not say that.

Sir J. Barlow: I thought it was said.

Mr. Lever: indicated dissent.

Sir J. Barlow: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to The Times of 3rd July he will find there what no doubt he knows from his professional knowledge. It stated:
The most natural way would be to channel the offer through an exempted dealer (most naturally a member of the local recognised Stock Exchange) or a licensed dealer. Such dealers are subject to their own special disciplines, which are in themselves some guarantee that the offer would be drawn up and phrased in the ways that experience has shown to be fairest and most satisfactory. All local authorities should take due note of this.
I hope the hon. Gentleman now agrees with me that it is not everyone who, by making an application, can become a licensed dealer.

Mr. H. Lever: Anybody who can prove that he is of good character and has not been to prison and sends a relatively small sum as a deposit to the Board of Trade can become a licensed dealer. I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman because it may help him to make a valid point instead of the invalid point he is making. There are other dealers who are exempted, dealers who are not licensed by the Board of Trade but by the fact that they are members of the Stock Exchange or are specially exempted by the Board of Trade in this matter. They have their special disciplines, and it was that class of person that The Times was recommending to be used for this kind of offer. That does not invalidate what I said, so that the only offence was that they were not licensed dealers.

Sir J. Barlow: I agree that there are certain classes of people who can become


licensed dealers, but it was suggested that the office boy of the Town Clerk could send an application and get such a licence.

Mr. Ede: If I may interrupt, I made the statement to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. I made it after making careful inquiries as to whether that statement could be substantiated. I was assured by people well qualified to give an opinion that it was so.

Sir J. Barlow: Naturally, I pay great attention to what the right hon. Gentleman says. I, also, during the last month have made careful inquiries and the answers I received from the Board of Trade do not exactly bear out the assertion made originally by the hon. Member for Cheetham.
Passing from that point, in spite of what we think is this small but rather important defect in the Bill, we want to see it become law. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) who said that Manchester should help to provide playing fields for children. I have never dissented from that belief, but I am sorry that at no time has any representative of the Manchester Corporation, as far as I know, suggested that there was anything wrong in the dealings. If such an indication, not necessarily a full apology, had come forward earlier, some of my hon. Friends

on this side of the House would have done much more than they have done to help the Bill go through quickly. In spite of that, we recognise the urgency and we hope that some of the perhaps relatively small points about values and so on, which we have criticised may be remedied. We recognise the urgency for getting the Bill on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible. I hope, therefore, that we shall finish this debate soon, as I can assure the House that my hon. Friends and I will not oppose its Third Reading tonight.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I have no desire to prolong the debate, but in the debates which have taken place last week and this, much has been made of too little. Nevertheless, I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said when he stressed the importance of the House examining Private Bills containing vast powers for local authorities and other corporations. There is a tendency for great powers to be slipped into Private Bills without hon. Members knowing about them. The duty of examining Bills first rests with us, and I hope that we shall honour it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment, To leave out paragraph 2.—[Mr. Ross.]

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Ross: There may well be a change of scene, but there is no great change of subject, because we are dealing with the provision of adequate facilities for physical recreation in respect of education for both children and adults in Scotland.
I had more or less covered the points with which I wished to deal before we were interrupted by the trials and tribulations of Manchester, but it is only fair to the Joint Under-Secretary rapidly to repeat them.
It is suggested in paragraph 2 of the new Schedule that the words
with the approval of the Secretary of State
as they appear in Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, shall cease to have effect. That Section relates to the duty laid on education authorities to provide for primary, secondary and further education adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training. I stress that the Section starts with the words:
It shall be the duty …
so that Parliament has laid a specific duty upon local authorities.
I remind hon. Members that in October, 1956, on exactly this plea of administrative efficiency which is behind this new Schedule, the Government wiped out the responsibility of the Secretary of State to require local authorities to present to him schemes to show that they were carrying out that specific duty which we have laid upon them. I have always considered this aspect of formal education, this provision of playing fields, camps, holiday schools, swimming baths and so on, to be an essential part of a good education. Equally, I am concerned that many local authorities do not think very much of it.
When we objected to what the Government did in 1956, the then Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) said that we were worrying unnecessarily and said that the Government thought

that this matter was important and that they could put their fingers on the information necessary because when a local authority acted in respect of Section 3 it had to get the approval of the Secretary of State. Earlier, I quoted the words with which we were lulled into thinking that the Government were merely making an administrative change which left them in close contact with local authorities about an important duty which we had laid upon them.
Now that bastion, that link which was thought so important is one which the Government wish to cut. What is the point of laying a duty on local authorities if we cut the threads of contact between the Government and local authorities? Joint Under-Secretaries should be careful of what they say. What they say is apt to be remembered and brought up. If it was important to answer our arguments of two years ago by saying, "We have this", pointing to the words "The Secretary of State shall approve", how will the Government answer us tonight and justify deleting those words which were then said to be so important?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, East is not here to come to the aid of the Joint Under-Secretary, but we should be told whether the Government believe that these things are an essential part of education.
9.15 p.m.
We are concerned here not with adult education alone but with the provision of adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training, in respect of primary and secondary education. So long as the Government insist on leaving Section 3 as it is, beginning with the words
It shall be the duty
how is the Secretary of State going to carry out his function of ensuring that the will of Parliament is met? How will he ensure that this duty is properly fulfilled, if he now makes this second stage of link-cutting by removing the words:
with the approval of the Secretary of State"?

Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has expressed some doubts about the wisdom


of dispensing with the approval of the Secretary of State, as proposed in paragraph 2. As he has rightly said, the paragraph deals with Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, which lays a duty upon an education authority
to secure that the facilities for primary, secondary and further education provided for their area include adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training.
To enable it to execute that duty the Section gives a power to the education authority to
establish, maintain and manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance and management
of various recreational and other facilities
with the approval of the Secretary of State.
It makes the exercise of that power conditional upon obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State to the plans.
In practice, what has been been happening is that for capital projects approval in principle could be sought under this Section, but capital authorisation has had to be given under provisions relating to borrowing if the project was not being provided in connection with the school, or if it was an adjunct of the school, under provisions relating to the approval of schemes for primary and secondary education, under Section 7 of the 1946 Act. There will be no change in the Secretary of State's control in that regard.
In regard to maintenance and management expenses, where the work is done or is assisted by the local education authority that authority submits a yearly estimate of its expenditure under Section 3, and the Secretary of State approves the amount. It has not been considered necessary to submit these estimates in great detail; indeed, I am told that the control has not been very closely exercised and that even where an estimate has been exceeded no action has been taken in general. The working party considered this control, through an educational sub-committee, and recommended that in the circumstances of the general grant the Secretary of State's approval should be dispensed with in this case, and the local authority associations concurred.
The power to establish, maintain and manage, or to assist in the establishment, maintenance and management of various

recreational and other facilities is not likely to be exercised to a lesser extent simply because the Secretary of State's approval is no longer necessary. It has always been up to the education authority to put up the proposals. Moreover, the duty to secure that the facilities are adequate remains, and is quite independent of the Secretary of State's approval. This is a sphere in which, as we have discussed previously, it is particularly difficult to prescribe standards—and none has been prescribed. Indeed, there is a very wide variation in the expenditure of different authorities in relation to population.
Nevertheless, if an education authority fails to maintain reasonable standards in carrying out this duty under Section 3 of the 1946 Act, Clause 3 (1) enables the Secretary of State to bring the matter to Parliament and to apply financial sanctions.

Mr. Ross: How will the Secretary of State know?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member knows very well that the functions of the Inspectorate will cover this point.

Mr. Ross: Oh.

Mr. Macpherson: There are the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State. He will certainly get to know in that way. There is no doubt that the mere removal of the approval of the Secretary of State to plans will in no way reduce the provision of facilities under Section 3 of the Act.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Joint Under-Secretary explaining that this is a meaningless Amendment and that it makes not the slightest difference? Clearly, if an education authority is to be sure that it gets a grant, it cannot be sure that it is not falling below what the Secretary of State wants. How is it to know whether it is the meeting what the Secretary of State thinks will be an adequate provision? Who tells the authority? Is it the inspector? If so, is not that, in effect, giving the approval of the Secretary of State? How does the local authority know that it will incur financial penalties unless it has some idea of what are the standards of the Secretary of State, and has knowledge that it is living up to them? Otherwise, a local authority may incur this penalty quite inadvertently. There must be some standard


below which a local authority must know that it will incur penalties.

Mr. Macpherson: With the permission of the House, I will answer that question. We have gone over this ground at length when discussing previous parts of the Bill and it has been said that it is only in the event of a manifest failure that the sanction would be applied. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite understood that the point here is, in the words of Section 3 of the Act, that
For that purpose"—
that is the execution of the duty—
an education authority with the approval of the Secretary of State, may establish, maintain and manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance and management of,
these facilities and the way in which this is carried out. So far, the way in which the approval of the Secretary of State has been obtained for the maintenance and management has been through the submission each year of plans, and, in the context of the general grant, it is clear that it is no longer necessary to submit those plans.

Mr. Ross: In view of the explanation of the Joint Under-Secretary, and realising full well that the damage is not done by this Amendment, but by the Amendment on which the Government insisted in 1956, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph 5.
I wish to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary a justification for not securing what I think is a collection of quite useful information which could be passed on to this House regarding school exemptions. Section 34 (5) of the 1946 Act, as I recollect it, lays a responsibility on the Secretary of State to call on local authorities to give him a list of exemptions granted annually to children over 14 years of age but who have not yet reached school leaving age. I have always felt this was something upon which the Secretary of State should keep a watchful eye. After all, it is no easy mater to justify giving a child permission to be absent for six months or for even a year, as may well be the case,

and I think we require some explanation about why the Secretary of State thought this a power he should forgo.
I do not think it calls for a great deal of clerical work to compile such a return from the local authorities. I can think of other things relating to exemptions where the right hon. Gentleman insists on having power over the local authority, for example, in relation to harvesting potatoes, where he insists on overriding the local authorities. I am sure that the local authorities would rather have freedom in respect of that, and carry on making this return referring to ordinary and normal exemptions. I should be grateful for an explanation.

Mr. Lawson: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is quite right in saying that Section 34 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, provides that an education authority may grant exemption in cases of exceptional hardship to children over 14 years of age to give assistance at home. Subsection (5) authorises the Secretary of State to call for a return of children to whom exemption has been granted, and, if he thinks that it should not have been granted, to require the authority to recall the exemption or to improve or to take steps to improve the attendance.
Of course, the Secretary of State has no power to compel an education authority to grant exemption if it does not want to do so.

Mr. Ross: In this case?

Mr. Macpherson: I am referring to the Section as it is now. That is the reverse of the picture.
The Secretary of State has power to call for the return, and if he thinks the exemption should not have been granted, to require the authority to recall the exemption and to take steps to improve the attendance in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to fear that if this power were withdrawn, there would be no power to call for the reports. I can assure him that that is not so. The Lords Amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State, where he thinks the grant is unjustified, to require education authorities to recall exemption or to take steps to improve the attendance. But he


will still have power to call for reports or returns from them under Section 93 of the 1946 Act.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will continue to publish statistics of the number of exemptions. I will go further and say that if the exemptions in any area so reported were to show an unusual and a disproportionate increase, no doubt an inquiry would be made. But the actual power to recall a particular exemption is withdrawn under the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: This seems to me just a little unsatisfactory. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is that the Secretary of State may call for a report, but that, even if he gets a report and feels the thing is wrong, there is nothing that he can do in the matter. Even if the position becomes so serious that the Secretary of State sets up an inquiry about it, the Joint Under-Secretary says that there is nothing that his right hon. Friend can do—even if the report bears out the very worst fears.
The Under-Secretary must go a little further than that. Surely, he must be able to tell us that if, on investigation, it is found that this privilege is being abused, the Secretary of State would have some power left to correct it. If not, there does not seem to be very much purpose in having a report and calling for an inquiry. I think that the House would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if, even at this stage, he could give us some satisfaction that, on the findings of the special report, the Secretary of State would have some power to see that the privilege was not being abused.

Mr. Woodburn: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him if he would not accept this Amendment? There does not seem to be any point in the Secretary of State giving up this power. He is not bound to use it. He can call upon an education authority for a return of the children to whom exemption has been granted, and he obviously would not use this power unless his inspectors reported that something was amiss. As it is, if his inspectors report that something is amiss, what is the point in not having the power to take some action about it?
The power lies completely dormant unless the Secretary of State has some purpose in using it, so it seems quite unnecessary to leave out this power. It is purely optional, and at the discretion of the Secretary of State. As far as my experience goes, the Secretary of State does not go about looking for trouble. It will be because some trouble exists that he will intervene in such cases. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment, and leave the power in the Bill.

Mr. N. Macpherson: By leave of the House, may I say that I think that hon. Members will recognise that the local authorities have exercised this power with great circumspection, and are to be relied upon. As hon. Gentlemen will see from the Annual Report, the number of exemptions is fairly small—only about 500 a year—and four-fifths of that number relates to girls in the special circumstances of looking after special cases at home. We think that this power should not be retained, because we believe that we can trust the education authorities to perform this function properly—and that they have shown that we can trust them to do so.
The Secretary of State can always inquire through his inspectors, and he can exercise powers of persuasion through his inspectors, but the real sanction here lies in public opinion; in the fact that Questions can be asked in the House. We do not believe for one instant that there is any point in retaining this power, for which it is quite clear there has been no use in the past, and for which we do not believe there will be any use in the future.

Mr. T. Fraser: It seems quite ridiculous that the Under-Secretary should insist upon the Secretary of State being denied this power, which he possesses under Section 34 (5) of the 1946 Act, and, instead, to rely on the pressure of public opinion and on hon. Members raising these matters by Question in this House. That is really ridiculous.
Has the hon. Gentleman no power to make a concession? We are discussing this for the first time in the Bill which has come back from another place. It has nothing to do with giving the local authorities more freedom, or reducing the amount of paper work between local authorities and the central Government. The hon. Gentleman has said that one of


the reasons for this Amendment, part of which my hon. Friend seeks to delete, is that the power has not been exercised by the Secretary of State. Therefore, there has been no paper work passing between the local authorities and the central Government at all. The hon. Gentleman has told my hon. Friend that though the Secretary of State will not have the right to call for a return, he can call for public inquiries, and do this, that and the other things. He has got this ultimate sanction of penalising—

Mr. N. Macpherson: I did not say that he could call for public inquiries. I said that he can inquire.

Mr. Fraser: How does he inquire?

Mr. Macpherson: By asking the inspectors.

Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State cannot insist upon getting a return because he is giving up the powers for calling for a return.

Mr. Macpherson: He has powers under Section 93 of the Act to call for returns. The only question is whether he should retain the power in the case of a particular exemption to say to a local authority "No, you may not exempt that person" or "You must send that person back."

Mr. Fraser: The Under-Secretary surely said that the Secretary of State can, if he is so satisfied, take steps to inquire. I said "By a local public inquiry?" and he said "No, he can ask the inspectors." But it is only because he has got that knowledge that he would begin to inquire. So he would ask the inspector to inquire—about what? He already has the knowledge.

Mr. Macpherson: I said that if there was a disproportionate number of exemptions in a particular area the Secretary of State would inquire into the reasons why.

Mr. Fraser: If he inquires through his inspectors and finds that there is a scandalous number of exemptions in an area, what does he then do? Does he then invite hon. Members to put down Questions in the House to call attention to the matter? That was the remedy suggested, that public opinion should be free to play by having matters raised in the House. The Secretary of State, having

ascertained that there has been a scandalous number of exemptions in an area which are not justified having regard to the provisions of the 1945 Act as consolidated in 1946, then does nothing about it—except that the Under-Secretary will encourage back benchers to put down Questions in the House so that the matter can be aired and public opinion may be allowed to play.
Surely the two Joint Under-Secretaries must have some power to make a concession to the House. The House of Commons has been treated pretty shabbily over this Bill. We are here considering Amendments from another place, Amendments which were not considered and not discussed in another place. This Amendment was not discussed in another place. This proposed Schedule is being discussed for the first time. This discussion has gone on for some time and the whole weight of argument is in favour of leaving Section 34 of the 1946 Act alone. Will not the Under-Secretary make one small concession to the arguments advanced in the House of Commons and accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock? If he does not do that, surely we have been reduced to government by decree. We are not legislating in a manner that is expected of a Parliamentary democracy.
Here we have this Lords Amendment which has not been discussed elsewhere, and the Under-Secretary is resisting for hopelessly inadequate reasons an Amendment moved from this side of the House. It has nothing to do with the amount of paper work flowing between local authorities and St. Andrew's House. I beg the hon. Gentleman to make this small concession to the arguments advanced in the House of Commons.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the Under-Secretary will agree that Parliament has laid an obligation on the citizen to see that his child is educated, and the Secretary of State is the instrument of that authority in Scotland. The duty devolves upon him to ensure that every child receives an education up to a certain defined age. The State provides the means for doing that.
Would not the Under-Secretary agree that here he is introducing an element of contradiction in the function of the Secretary of State, because while he has the


authority and the power to see that the child is educated, he is giving to another body the power to allow that child to be exempted from school attendance? Does not it seem a contradiction that while he keeps the power for ensuring attendance, he resigns the power of allowing exemption? Apparently he cannot exercise both powers as he ought to do, especially now when there is great pressure on schools to release children in view of the very high wages which can be paid to children.
An employer of labour who has a job available is known in many cases—indeed, I have known cases myself—to call on a headmaster and say that he has a job available for a suitable pupil. Very often the job is available before the pupil can leave, in which case the job cannot be accepted, though sometimes it is kept open. But this is where the pressure comes in to try to have that child away from school two or three months earlier than it would normally leave in order that a job may be taken. It is quite possible that that kind of pressure will now increase, and many good reasons could be advanced to secure the exemption of a child. Although there might seem to be an immediate advantage, in my view, such a step would be detrimental to the child's future.
While all our thoughts are concentrated upon prolonging the period at school, we are here introducing a method whereby, in particular cases, the period at school may be reduced, without the Secretary of State, who is responsible for securing education, having any say in the matter apart from an inquiry, so the Joint Under-Secretary of State told us, if there is widespread abuse in certain areas. This attitude is completely wrong.
The Under-Secretary of State must realise that, if we had had the opportunity of discussing this matter in Committee, there would have been a very strong debate. It would not have gone through as it is going through tonight because we are circumscribed by the procedure which the Secretary of State himself has adopted. We are not asking for very much. The Secretary of State is merely being asked to keep his existing power, in the interests of the long-term welfare of the pupils. That is not a great concession to ask for.
9.45 p.m.
These Amendments have come from another place which itself can have no future in the legislative set-up of this country. This is a reactionary move, coming from another place the future of which many of us in this Chamber, on both sides, believe ought to receive some attention from the country and from this House. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will pay close attention to the strong plea which has been put to him that the Secretary of State shall not resign the power which he presently has.

Mr. N. Macpherson: May I say another word or two, because I feel that the Opposition are pressing the Amendment on the basis of some misunderstanding? Perhaps I should have made clear beforehand—I thought it was fairly obvious—that the returns which are put in are annual returns. The exemptions which are granted are granted only up to the beginning of the next term, and no longer. The power which is being dispensed with, as I understand it, is merely the power in individual cases, to require the education authority to recall such exemptions.
It must surely follow that there is quite good reason, at any rate, why this power has not been used so far. It has been impracticable. In the second place, there has been no need to use it. Experience has shown that it has been unnecessary. There is a duty on the education authority to secure the attendance of the child, a duty which the authority itself can enforce by court action. It is up to the authority, under Section 34, to grant exemption. Section 34 (1) provides:
When after due inquiry an education authority are satisfied that by reason of any circumstances existing at home it would cause exceptional hardship to require a child over fourteen years of age to attend school, they may grant exemption"—
it is permissive—
from the obligation to attend school to enable the said child to give assistance at home upon such conditions, if any, as to the amount and manner of further attendance at school until the child reaches the upper limit of the school age as the authority think fit.
There are then further safeguards.
I really do not think that it is necessary to maintain this control. If there should be widespread abuse by any particular authority, there are general powers of enforcement under Section 66


of the Act. The Secretary of State has, ultimately, adequate powers in the case of widespread abuse. What he obviously cannot do is to call for the withdrawal of a particular exemption. It has not worked in that way. The local authorities have shown that they have been completely responsible in the way they have exercised this power.
We have had over ten years' experience of the exercise of the power. It has been shown that the power is not necessary, and I do not feel that the House would be wise to insist upon the Secretary of State retaining the power in face of the recommendation of the education subcommittee of the Working Party, representing both education authorities and the official side, and the concurrence of the education authorities themselves.

Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "assistance"? Does the word mean assistance in looking after the home, or can it also mean assistance to the home by supplementing the wages earned in the home?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman is asking for a legal interpretation of a particular word. I can only give him my experience of practical application. From my experience, it is not interpreted as financial assistance. It means practical assistance where there is illness or something of that kind in the home.

Mr. Ross: I should like to ask one direct question. The hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State had power under Section 93, which reads:
Every education authority shall make such reports and returns and give such information to the Secretary of State as he may from time to time require.
Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to ask education authorities to make a return of exemptions annually?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Ross: On the assurance that we have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph 14.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed with

this Amendment the Amendments to leave out paragraphs 15 and 16. The principle is the same.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Willis: The Lords Amendment abolishes the statutory obligation of local authorities to appoint certain committees. We should like to have some information on the reasons that have led the Lords to make this suggestion. This obligation was, of course, laid down in the 1947 Act. It seemed to be a good thing at that time to make it obligatory for local authorities to appoint certain committees, and on the face of it it certainly would not look as though there were any less necessity for doing this eleven years later. I should have thought that this was particularly true with regard to roads. The work of local authorities in connection with roads has increased enormously since 1947. If there was reason for a local authority to appoint a committee in 1947, I should have thought that it was even more clearly a necessity at present.
I do not know what representations have been made about this matter. Are there any local authorities who do not wish to appoint committees? I see that the reason given in the White Paper for this innovation is that it will enable a local authority to combine the functions of two existing committees in one committee. I hardly think that that is a good argument in view of the increased amount of work that is being put on local authorities, particularly in connection with roads. Neither could I see when I looked at the list of matters with which it was proposed to deal, namely, allotments, health, planning, police, roads and welfare, how a committee dealing with roads could easily be combined with one of these other committees, because the functions did not seem to go together.
The other reason given in the White Paper for these changes is that it might be advantageous to leave the administration of some of the functions performed by these committees with the local authority. But if the work is increased, I should have thought that that argument was less tenable than the other. If there was a case for a committee before with an increase in work surely there is more of a case now for leaving the matter to the local authority.
These changes might be good, but we do not know much about them. We have


not been told anything. What are the experiences of local authorities? Which of them are having difficulties about this? What are the difficulties that the local authorities are meeting? Are these services made difficult to administer by being compelled to appoint these committees? That surely cannot be the case. There must be other reasons which have led the Government to put forward these proposals in the Lords Amendments, and we should like to know some of them before we accept the provisions contained in the new Schedule.

Mr. McInnes: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Mr. N. Macphersonrose—

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that if any other hon. Member wishes to speak in favour of the Amendment it would be tidier from the point of view of the House if he spoke now and let the Joint Under-Secretary reply at the end.

Mr. Ross: We can speak only once.

Mr. Macpherson: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said. He began, however, by saying—I think by a slip of the tongue—that the Lords Amendment would abolish the committees. Clearly, that was not what the hon. Member meant to say.

Mr. Willis: I meant the abolition of the statutory obligation to appoint the committees.

Mr. Macpherson: That is what the Lords Amendment would do. The Lords Amendment removes the mandatory requirement that county councils must have separate committees for the purposes of their roads functions, their police functions, their health functions, and so on. This is the logical application of the Bill. We are making available in the form of general grant a sum of money to the local authorities to spend and administer in their own way. The general case for dispensing with this requirement is that, in the Government's view, if local authorities can be trusted to spend the general grant amounting to millions of pounds a year they may also be trusted to make their own arrangements for the discharge of particular functions.

Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the police are quite outwith the general grant. The local authorities are not to be trusted in relation to that; it is still to be a specific grant. The hon. Gentleman's argument, therefore, is not related to the point.

Mr. Macpherson: It is related, because local authorities are still free to spend these millions of pounds. Therefore, they can be trusted to run their affairs in the most efficient way.
If this requirement is removed, as the Lords Amendment provides, it will be open to a local authority, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, to decide on one of three courses. First, it can retain existing separate committees, and in many cases local authorities will no doubt do so. Secondly, it can refer more than one service to a combined committee. The hon. Member asked how the functions could be combined. The answer is that that is a matter for the local authority to decide if it considers it appropriate to do so. The third way in which local authorities can proceed is by keeping the administration in the hands of the full council. But whatever choice a local authority makes, the matter is one for local decision. It may well be that the present committees will continue.
This is a logical consequence of the whole principle of the Bill. The Lords Amendment should therefore be adopted. This is a matter which can safely be left in the hands of the local authority.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to say that I have received notice of a manuscript Amendment from the Secretary of State for Scotland which seems to affect paragraph 17. Perhaps I had better read it before we embark on the discussion, as the two Amendments may go together. The Amendment proposed is:
Paragraph 17, line 20, at end insert:
or of the town council or a county of a city.
I think the proper course would be for the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to move his Amendment and the Question will then be put in a way that will save this Amendment if the House agrees to it, and we can consider the two together.

Mr. McInnes: Do I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to have read the words of the Manuscript Amendment as
… the town council or a county of a city."?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it refers to a county council in the original. Perhaps I had better read the Manuscript Amendment again. It is:
Paragraph 20, at end, insert:
or of a town council of a county or a city.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I think that it reads in that copy,
or of a town council of a county of a city.

Mr. Speaker: I will put it in that way. The manuscript Amendment is:
Or of a town council of a county of a city.

Mr. Ross: If I were permitted to word the manuscript Amendment, I could make it a great deal simpler. All that is required is the deletion of one word, that is "a county."

Mr. Speaker: We had better hear the discussion on the matter.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph 17.
I do not know the origin of the manuscript Amendment, but I have a fair idea. In future, I shall be more careful as to with whom I discuss my Amendments or in whose hearing. We are dealing with Section 114 of the original Measure, the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, which dealt with the constitution of sub-committees of committees which were functioning under administrative schemes. They were ordinary sub-committees of a committee which were allowed to have in their constitution up to one-third non-elected members, but an exception was made in the case of a sub-committee of an Education Committee which was allowed to have up to one-half of its members non-elected. Now we are being offered an Amendment which wipes out that part of Section 114 which relates to the constitution of a sub-committee appointed by a committee which exercises these functions of a county or a town council. The important point on which the draftsmen or whoever instructed them slipped up is that this leaves out that part of the Section

relating to the constitution of a subcommittee of an Education Committee.
Only certain authorities in Scotland have education committees, and those are the county councils and the town councils of the cities, but if we are to apply the changes made in the Amendment to these we shall discover that they wipe out about seven lines of the original Section and make it read:
Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act. …
And then the next seven lines are wiped out and the next four lines are shifted down below the remaining part of the Section with the exception of one word, making it read:
Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act, a sub-committee appointed by a committee of the council …
That has worked satisfactorily, but we are now told "of a county council". I want to know what will happen to the cities because they are not county councils. I think they are town councils. If this is a real difficulty, I suggest we revert to the original words and instead of saying "county councils and the town council of a county of a city" we should delete the first "county".

Mr. McInnes: Is my hon. Friend of the same mind as myself, namely, that Mr. Speaker has accepted a manuscript Amendment to that effect?

Mr. Ross: I think Mr. Speaker was in the same difficulty as the rest of us in not understanding what really is the manuscript Amendment of the Government. I suggest that all we have to do is to remove the word "county" from the Amendment coming from another place.
I want to know exactly why this considerable change has been suggested. What is the implication of it? Is this some move made by St. Andrew's House going to war with the City of Edinburgh? I believe that the City of Edinburgh's Education Committee has co-opted representatives from the university, from the Established Church of Scotland, from the Episcopal Church, from the Roman Catholic Church. If this Amendment passes, as it might have passed, but for the unfortunate conversation I had last night, it will mean that there might be some doubt as to whether the cities would be given the same freedom to appoint non-elected members as the county councils.
I would like to have an assurance from the Joint Under-Secretary that no such strange scheme has entered the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland and that some mistake has been made which will be put right. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here because he could put us right. Indeed, I am sure that all this trouble has started because the Lord Advocate has not been in his place. This would not have happened if we had been getting proper legal advice. I hope we shall get an explanation of why this has been found necessary and why we are getting into this complication because of the great carelessness in relation to the legislation for the subcommittees of the education committees of Scotland.

Mr. McInnes: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: We are grateful for the conversation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and for his speech. I noted that, in effect, he made the same speech as he intended to make anyway, but I will proceed to answer it in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made it.
This is a complicated matter and I ask the indulgence of the House because it is rather technical. Section 114 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 contains provisions for the membership of sub-committees appointed by committees whose functions are the subject of administrative schemes. Now the education administrative scheme is the only one which will remain mandatory in future. The education committee will remain mandatory, so will the finance and children committees but, as things are, already they are not subject to administrative schemes.
Paragraph 17 of the Schedule simply provides that these provisions would in future apply only to education, and it rewrites and replaces subsection (1) of Section 114 in very much simpler terms. With the abolition in paragraphs 12 and 24 of the mandatory requirements as it applies to the other committees which are subject to administrative schemes, that is to say, roads, health and valuation committees, the provisions of Section 114 will in future be reguired only for education, and that is why this Amendment

has been put down, in order to make a simplification.
Considerable doubt has been expressed on whether the term "county councils" can be held to cover the counties of cities and we have put down a Manuscript Amendment to remove any possible doubt and to put the matter right.

Mr. McInnes: On a point of order. I am not conscious that Mr. Speaker indicated his intention to accept a Manuscript Amendment. If he did, I apologise for not having heard him say so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): I understood from Mr. Speaker that he has accepted that Amendment.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. Before your arrival in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was pointed out that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) proposed a Manuscript Amendment to the same effect as that of the Government, but in much better terms. Mr. Speaker then said, "We will see about that when we get to it." I think that those were his exact words. We do not now know where we are.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of order. Is it not normally the case that an Amendment is discussed before we move to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? Would it not have been better, as is done in meetings outside, for the Amendment to be cleared out of the way and for the Clause as amended, or not amended, then to be discussed on its merits?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Of course, we do not have a Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" on the Lords Amendments and I put the Question, "That paragraph 17 stand part to the end of line 20," so that the Government Manuscript Amendment could be included. I have had no instructions about the other manuscript Amendment, and therefore I cannot accept it.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in paragraph 17, line 6, at end insert:
or of the town council of a county of a city.

Mr. Ross: I want to know whether this is quite necessary. The original wording of Section 114 has had the words
the county council or town council
deleted and the part relating to a subcommittee said:
Provided that—a sub-committee of the education committee of a council …
Why do we need to put in all these words when all we needed to do was to remove the word "county", which should not have been there in the first place? If there is a ham-handed way of doing things, the Scottish Office will find it.
We have to accept this Amendment because no other Amendment will be accepted, and on that issue we have had a Ruling from the Chair. However, to safeguard the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee and to enable them to ensure that their non-elected members will be legally entitled to sit on the education sub-committees, we have to accept the Government's Amendment. What an Amendment! What a performance!

Mr. N. Macpherson: By leave of the House; one has to accept the views of the draftsmen on this matter. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will refer to Section 108, he will see that it deals specifically with education committees and begins with the words:
Every county council and the town council of every county of a city …
The present drafting of Section 114 refers to town councils besides town councils of a county of a city, but in future it will not do so. When it comes to the mere reference to a council, that is a reference to what has gone before. The hon. Member will find that the draftsmen are right in this case.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment as amended, to leave out paragraph 18.
This paragraph provides for the addition of a new subsection to Section 115 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. The effect of that new subsection is to repeal the statutory obligation upon local authorites to appoint committees to deal with functions under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922; the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947; the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act,

1947, and the National Assistance Act, 1948. It leaves local authorities free to determine for themselves whether they continue such a committee, combine the committees or leave the administration of the committees entirely in the hands of the full council, without the necessity of appointing any committee to carry out any of the functions under the four Acts which I have mentioned.
The proposed new subsection goes a stage further and deals with a matter which I regard as vital, namely, the question of the membership of these committees. The law at present provides that the allotments and welfare committees are mandatory and the health and planning committees are permissive. By introducing the proposed new subsection local authorities will be allowed to co-opt on to these four committees, to an extent not exceeding one-third of their memberships, persons who are not elected members of the council and who are qualified simply by reason of their special knowledge and experience.
I know that the principle of co-option is not commencing with this Bill: I realise that it probably commenced in 1929, or even further back. But what I am alarmed at is the continued extension of the principle of co-option. That principle seems to be influenced by the desire to secure the expert advice and service of individuals who are qualified by reason of their ability or experience or their expert knowledge of a subject, such as education, allotments, health or National Assistance. We are told that this co-option is necessary because the democratic process by which councillors are elected has failed to produce the proper material which is necessary for the wise, efficient and effective administration of a local authority.
I have never accepted that point of view. I do not believe that co-option always results in securing the expert. I have already indicated that there is a growing tendency to co-opt people who are regarded as experts, but my experience is that they are co-opted not because they are experts, or have a specialised knowledge of a certain subject, or have an economic or even a spiritual interest in certain aspects of local government, but very often as a consoliation prize for having been defeated in an election a year or so before. That has frequently happened in Scotland.
I need hardly remind this House, and certainly not the Under-Secretary of State, of the serious consequences that occasionally arise as a result of co-option. There are dangers about co-option when it comes to a local authority with a narrow political majority. In Glasgow we had the experience of the co-option of one individual resulting in his vote determining whom should be the Lord Provost against the will of the majority party of the council. That individual was actually flown home from Paris to be present at the council meeting to vote for the person who was elected Lord Provost.
I feel that there are dangers about this question of co-option which will become even greater the more we extend the practice. I regard co-option as a sort of back-door method of getting into local government. Co-opted members have no financial responsibilities to the electorate. They have little or no responsibility of any kind to the electorate, because the electorate are not able to make overtures to them regarding social problems.
I regard local government as an essential part of the framework of our democracy. If there are experts who are able to offer something to the community, I suggest that they should display their civic pride and stand for election so as to give the community the benefit of their expert knowledge. I am content, indeed I am convinced, that local authorities, through their own officials, have all the expert knowledge and experience necessary to guide them. People who are alleged to possess all the wisdom and experience, and who desire to accept public responsibility, should do so in the correct way by going through the gateway of democratic election. I am vigorously opposed to the proposals in the Lords Amendment.
In the case of town and country planning committees, while I recognise that co-option is permissible to the extent of one-quarter of the membership, under the Lords Amendment that would be extended to one-third of the membership. Other committees which local authorities are obliged under Statute to appoint and on which there was no co-option are now included, and so we have the situation that co-option is being extended still further. In a previous Amendment co-option on the education committee of a county council is extended considerably.
I regard it as an alarming position that 50 per cent. of the members are co-opted.
I wish to hear the real reason behind this Amendment. Who drafted it? I cannot pay tribute to those in another place for being capable of thinking out Amendments of this kind for themselves. I feel sure that the suggestion to extend the principle of co-option emanated from another source altogether, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will enlighten us.

Mr. Ross: This is a serious matter. I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) on the question of co-option. On many sub-committees it has been possible to co-opt people with a specialised interest and they have done good work. But I can appreciate his feelings when a co-opted member, or an ex-officio member of the council, who did not stand for election, was able to sway the destinies of the City of Glasgow and decide who was to be its chief citizen.
There is no doubt that in some areas there is difficulty about obtaining the services of the right people. There are many people who would be prepared to serve upon a specific committee but who have not the time to serve as full-time members of a local authority. It is a question of whether one-third or, in the case of an education committee, one-half is the right number. It is up to a local authority to decide and that is something which makes me inclined to leave it in that way.
I am not entirely convinced of what is happening here. We are now drawing up rules in relation to committees, and, if I may say so, we have never had that before. Some people may say that there is no change—that it is still one-third—but that is not so. For certain committees, one-third can now be non-elected members.
10.30 p.m.
By accepting an Amendment to Clause 114 we wiped out altogether the subcommittees, which, with all due respect to them, are much smaller things. The possibility of sub-committees with one-third of non-members being created by committees exercising their functions under administrative schemes is all wiped out. The only one left is the education sub-committee. That is left more or less as it was.
When we come to Clause 115, I would point out that we are laying down a constitution in relation to committees and


sub-committees, and here we are asked to pass a new subsection that limits co-option to committees—and to particular committees. That is how I read it, but I may be wrong. If so, I shall be very glad to have my fears allayed.
The proposed wording is:
Section one hundred and fifteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of committees and sub-committees of county councils, town councils of burghs and district councils) shall have effect with the addition of the following subsection, that is to say—
'(3) Any committee appointed by a local authority under subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of the authority's functions under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or the National Assistance Act, 1948, may to an extent not exceeding one third of its membership consist of persons, not being members of the local authority, who have special knowledge or experience…
As far as I can judge from that, the only co-option, apart from that to the education sub-committees, will be to these committees and not to any others. Indeed, would question if these committees themselves will have sub-committees apart from the committee, because it says that the sub-committee of any committee appointed by the local authority cannot contain any non-elected member. Are my fears right? As I have said, we deleted from Clause 114 the part that related to the appointment of sub-committees, and we are here putting in something that relates only to committees, and only to committees in respect of allotments, National Health, town and country planning and National Assistance, and there is nothing said about sub-committees.
It is no good telling me that a sub-committee is part of a committee, because we go out of the way, first of all, to give powers to a local authority to appoint a committee, and then, quite separately, powers to the committee to appoint a sub-committee. It may well be that there will be no sub-committees of these committees—that is not for us to judge but, probably, for the local authority.
This is all part of the stupidity of this proceeding, whereby the House of Commons sees this at the last minute and we can make only one speech. The Government themselves cannot amend it, except by manuscript Amendment. This is the first and the last time that we see it, and, indeed, our speeches are made only for information, and we cannot press

the Government to the point of changing the legislation—beyond wiping it out, which, of course, nobody really desires.
Is it the case that sub-committees even of these committees will not be able to have any non-elected members? I shall be very glad to have my fears about this allayed.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I intervene in the debate for a moment to indicate that there is at least one person on this side of the House who agrees with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in defending the principle of co-option and who disagrees with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes).
We have all had experience of this matter in different ways, and I must say that my experience, stretching over a long time, is that local government and public life generally have benefited enormously by this principle of co-option. I am sure that we all know of cases of individuals who are not interested in public life generally and who are not prepared to go through the trouble of the hustings and the criticisms that follow, but who have a real talent for one particular subject or another and who are willing to undertake public duty in that narrow field.
If we do not use those people we lose all the value of their service and loyalty in these affairs. It would be disastrous for our public life if we were not to make it clear that the principle is one that Parliament supports. Therefore, I hope very much that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central does not represent the majority view of his party in the matter.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: With all respect, I think that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) is a little confused on the point. He argued as if we were objecting to the principle of co-option. My hon. Friend did not argue that. He argued the fact that we were extending the use of co-option. It was a quantitative rather than a qualitative argument which he put forward, so I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, East will agree that my hon. Friend was not arguing the principle.
Part of the argument for the Bill was that it would attract into public life people who would see that the vast frustrations of local authority work were no longer present. I do not subscribe to that argument, but I understand that it is the premise on which the Government have argued.
The reason why I support the Amendment is that I see a very considerable danger, even accepting that premise, to the success of the Bill if it is suggested that people can come into local government life and participate in only one particular avenue, and that we should encourage this. I think that a person interested in education, health or any other aspect of local government work should be encouraged to come into public life as an elected representative. He ought to see the balance of local government rather than only one aspect of it.
The fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), which are shared by many, are that this Clause will stimulate the participation of co-opted members more and more and that if local government is going to become dependent in the last analysis on the work of co-opted people it is not going to be good government. It is going to be government influenced by experts. Experts are not always right. They often lack common sense because they do not have the balance of the interests they represent.
The first argument against the Amendment is that it undermines the public spiritedness which is supposed to be the intention of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the arguments of political abuse in this matter. That can apply to both parties, or even to independents as such. He said that it will stimulate, where there is a slender majority, the party of that slender majority to seek to put its own men into these positions. I do not believe that party government is always identified in local government circles as being party government by label. It can often be by outside agreement, by friendship even, and, alas, by vested interests. That is an argument which this Amendment seeks to undo.
The argument in which I am interested is the functional one. The National Health Service is referred to in the paragraph. I feel that the trouble with the National Health Service, as we have seen in the Guillebaud Report, is that so many representatives of the Health Service are appointed members of local management committees and so on who often are not in complete contact with the people whom they seek to serve. We are extending this number of the detached, unresponsible man in public

life who has no direct electorate to answer to but who sits there trying to do his best, and at the same time there is no power of recall, save the power of appointment by a party caucus. That is wrong, and I wholeheartedly support the Amendment to delete this paragraph.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) went very wide in his speech. He referred to the powers of co-opted members voting in the full council.

Mr. McInnes: I only gave an illustration of what could happen under a system of co-opted membership if we continued this extension.

Mr. Browne: I was going to tell the hon. Member that this had nothing to do with the provisions covered by this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that there are experts and experts, but I would tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that I could find one exceedingly valuable expert for every so-called "passenger" that he can find for me. I disagree with the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) who said that he does not like experts. I think there are cases where experts can be of very great value. But these agreements and disagreements underline the value of this provision; the local authority can now reflect its own opinions because this paragraph is not mandatory. The members "may" be co-opted, not "shall" be co-opted.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central asked why we should do this at all. I think I can explain it to him. Paragraph 18 is a necessary corollary to paragraphs 1, 15, 20 and 23 of the Schedule which abolish the mandatory committees dealing with allotments, health, planning and welfare. As these committees are no longer mandatory, so we have to make some provision about their membership. But, as the local authority can, if it wishes, now combine the two committees—say, health and welfare—we can no longer retain those statutory conditions under which at present in these four instances the composition of the non-elected members resides. We can no longer, as I say, make any committee subject to a statutory direction that there shall be non-elected members.
I should answer the hon. Member for Kilmarnock by saying that what we are


doing is retaining in mandatory form what is now statutorily in mandatory form as far as the membership of non-elected members in these four committees is concerned—

Mr. McInnes: I cannot follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He says in the first place that the Lords Amendments are taking away the statutory obligation of local authorities to appoint the committees. But when we come to the question of the membership of the committees, in some instances they were mandatory and in others they were permissive. The argument of the hon. Gentleman is that we must make some arrangement to provide for co-option. There is no need to do that. We can still provide for the membership of the committees without providing for co-option.

Mr. Browne: It is impossible to provide for one-third elected members. If a local authority combined two committees, it would be forced to have two one-thirds.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: In following out the logic of the Lords Amendment, if a local authority decides that there shall be a combination of committees, obviously the membership of the committee shall be left to the discretion of the local authority, without any necessity for co-option.

Mr. Browne: But a local authority does not have to co-opt now, when this paragraph becomes law. It is purely permissive.
As regards sub-committees, which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned, the local authorities did not desire that there should be any statutory force to the co-option of non-members on sub-committees, and, in fact, there are none now except in the case of education. So that by making no reference to non-members on sub-committees we are retaining the status quo.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Section 114 provides:
Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act, a sub-committee appointed by a committee whose functions are functions to which an administrative scheme relates may, subject to the provisions of the scheme or to any standing orders or any directions by the county council or town council, consist in part of persons not being members of the committee, so however that at least two-thirds of the members of any such sub-committee shall be members of the council".

That is the provision as it now stands. The Committees covered by comprehensive schemes are not just those concerned with education; they cover valuation, roads, local health, amongst others.

Mr. Browne: These are powers regarding sub-committees which have not been used.

Mr. Ross: That is a different matter.

Mr. Browne: So we are not making any fresh legislation on that point. To the hon. Gentleman for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) I would say that we are not breaking fresh ground at all. At present, there are broadly similar statutory provisions, though they are different in detail, covering the membership of all the committees concerned. Paragraph 18 replaces by a single provision the existing powers of a local authority, if it wishes, to include in any relevant committee up to one-third of non-councillors, provided that they have special knowledge and experience. This is a very sensible course, and it has been welcomed by the local authorities.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, as amended, negatived.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to [One with Special Entry.]: In line 41, at end insert:


"11 &amp; 12 Geo. 5. c. 58.
The Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921.
In section ten, in subsection (1), in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (8)."

In page 27, line 10, column 3, after "(4)" insert:
in paragraph (7), the words 'in addition to any sums voted by Parliament for the training of teachers'".

In line 31, column 3, at end insert "and subsection (8)".

In line 46, at end insert:


"12 &amp; 13 Geo. 5. c. 52.
The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922.
Section nine."

In line 46, after Amendment last inserted, insert:


"19 &amp; 20 Geo. 5. c. 25.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929.
In section forty-six, in subsection (2), paragraph (a)."

In page 28, line 6, column 3, after first "in" insert:
section three, in subsection (1), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State" in section twenty-five, in subsection (6), the words "with the sanction of the Secretary of State"; in section twenty-seven, the words "will the approval of the Secretary of State"; in section thirty-four, subsection (5); in section forty-five, in subsection (1), the words "or as the Secretary of State may direct"; in

In line 9, column 3, at end insert:
in section seventy-four, subsections (2) and (3)

In line 10, column 3, after "In" insert:
section twenty-two, in subsection (3), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State"; in section twenty-seven, in subsection (3), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State"; in section fifty-one, in subsection (3), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State"; in

In line 11, column 3, at end insert "and the Fifth Schedule."

In line 16, column 3, at end insert:
In section one hundred and five, subsections (2), (3) and (4); section one hundred and seven; section one hundred and ten; section one hundred and eleven; section one hundred and twelve; in section one hundred and fifty-seven, the words "with the consent of the Minister concerned"; in section two hundred and three, subsection (3); in section two hundred and eight, subsection (1)".

In line 17, column 3, after first "In" insert:
section two, in subsection (5), the words "and Part IV" and the words "and of planning committees respectively"; in".

In line 20, column 3, at end insert "and, in the First Schedule, Part IV.".

In line 21, column 3, at end insert:
in section one hundred and thirty-five, in subsection (1), the words "Subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe", and subsection (2).

In line 23, column 3, at end insert:
in section thirty-three, in subsection (2), the words 'committees and'; in the Third Schedule, Part I; in Part II, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (3), and, in paragraph 11, subparagraph (f); and in Part III, in paragraph 12, in sub-paragraph (a), the words from 'and for any reference' to the end of the sub-paragraph; sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).".

In line 45, column 3, leave out first "In" and insert:
Section two; in section three, in subsection (4), paragraph (c); in".

Title.

Postponed Lords Amendment, in the Title: In line 4, after "finance" insert "and administration".

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think we can hardly oppose this Lords Amendment, but I think our experience during today has shown quite clearly that the Opposition were right in the early part of the day to call attention to the fact that what we were to be asked to agree to was really an additional Bill written into the Bill we sent to another place some weeks ago. We have not had adequate opportunity to discuss what are considerable Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Nugent.]

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Before the House agrees, if it does, to discuss the Lords Amendments to the Park Lane Improvement Bill, I wish to enter a protest at the way in which these Lords Amendments have come to this House.
I do so because these Amendments reached the House, as I understand, on Thursday and were available to hon. Members in the Vote Office on Thursday evening or Friday. On Monday, in the normal way, I asked at the Vote Office for the report of the proceedings in another place upon these Amendments and I obtained the OFFICIAL REPORT and discovered that these Amendments were not even discussed on the Floor of the Chamber in another place but had been considered by a Select Committee. I asked at the Vote Office for the report of the proceedings of the Select Committee, and the Vote Office went to some trouble to obtain it for me and found that it was unobtainable. Being Monday, it was part of the aristocratic weekend and nobody could be contacted in another place.
On the following day, they made representations again and found that the report of the proceedings of the Select Committee was not available. So I inquired in the Library of this House


whether the proceedings were available, and only today did I obtain the confidential proof of the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee which considered the petitions which were presented in another place and which considered the Bill and agreed to these Amendments.
These Amendments were not debated. They were accepted more or less en bloc in another place and no debate took place there. Unless hon. Members went to considerable trouble, in the way I was compelled to, to obtain the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee, which are not normally or generally available, it is impossible for Members to have considered the reason why this large number of Lords Amendments were made.
There are twelve Amendments before us now and, of these, seven are substantive, that is to say, they are of considerable importance. Only two of these were actually debated in another place on the Floor of the Chamber, the others being accepted by the Select Committee after it had heard counsel and gone through the normal procedure. This makes it very difficult for hon. Members to debate the Amendments tonight. The arguments which persuaded another place to accept the Amendments are not available to hon. Members.
I hope, therefore, that when we proceed to discuss the Amendments the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, who is responsible for presenting them to the House, will explain in some detail why these Amendments were moved and accepted by the Government. Hon. Members are quite ignorant of the reasons. Normally it is possible, through the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place, for us to consider these matters in advance. Tonight we have not had that opportunity. There is something at fault in the procedure if Amendments come before us which it has been impossible for us to consider in advance.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The House will not expect me to comment on the procedures in another place, but I have found that they are somewhat different from ours and that another place does not formally publish these reports. As hon. and right hon. Members will now know, two reports, one being the summary of evidence and the other

the Committee's report, were published in their provisional form on 25th June and 1st July, respectively, but I have to accept that the procedure of obtaining copies of them is not simple. Naturally, it would be my wish that hon. Members should have all the material they require to assist them in their deliberations. I am sorry that that has not been so, and I will do my best to help out in the debate.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Nobody wishes to criticise the procedure in another place. What my hon. Friends criticise is the haste with which the Government went ahead with these Amendments while they knew perfectly well that this House was not in possession of information on which to base a debate on them. Perhaps you may think it proper, Mr. Speaker, to look into procedures by which a report of a Select Committee, upon whose recommendations these Amendments are based, is not available to hon. Members in the Vote Office in time for hon. Members to inform themselves of the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Each House has a perfect right to arrange the publication of its own documents, but I am afraid that this is not a matter in which I could interfere. The reasons for the Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," must be given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. This is a debate in this House, and the reasons must be given here. I am afraid that we cannot control the publication of a report by another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AS TO ACQUISITION OF LAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 11, leave out "fourteen days" and insert "two months".

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is designed to lengthen the minimum period of notice originally inserted in the Bill for owners and occupiers of property which is to be acquired. Certain property north of Knightsbridge is to be acquired. The Bill provided originally for fourteen days' notice. The London County Council had given provisional warning to those concerned some


months ago—I should think six months' warning by the time the Bill reaches the Statute Book—and therefore it was thought that provision for fourteen days' formal statutory notice was sufficient in the Bill. Indeed, that was similar to many earlier Acts, and in this matter this has been amended in another place to two months. I might add that this will not affect the time-table for the Bill as this property will not be required until the end of this year.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: We accept this reluctantly, but hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not think that we are taking this as a precedent. As he has already told the House, the London County Council has taken special pains on this occasion to comply with the Standing Orders and many of the owners of property will have had two months' notice by the time this Measure is on the Statute Book. So the extension to two months is, we think, unnecessary and we concede the Amendment only in order to expedite the passage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10.—(PERMANENT STOPPING-UP, ETC., OF STREETS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 32, at end to insert:
Provided that the Council shall not so exercise their powers under this subsection as to prevent vehicles and pedestrians passing between Park Lane and Hertford Street or between Park Lane and Pitt's Head Mews.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment arises from the Select Committee's consideration of a petition by New City Properties, and it was the only petition. This company is negotiating to build a large hotel facing Park Lane on the site bounded by Pitt's Head Mews and Hertford Street, and it was feared that the powers given to the L.C.C. by Clause 10, as originally drafted, for stopping up streets permanently in respect of Pitt's Head Mews and, possibly, also Hertford Street would restrict vehicular traffic access. It was considered reasonable to remove any element of doubt as to what the L.C.C. could do by way of stopping them up, and so this Amendment was included substantially to clear any doubt which existed.

Mr. Ernest Davies: You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the proceedings of a Select Committee. I have already spoken about that and pointed out that they are proceedings to which this House is not privy. Only if one goes to great trouble can this confidential proof be obtained, and I doubt if any hon. Member of this House except myself has obtained it.
Therefore, I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have given us more explanation as to why this Amendment is considered necessary. For my part, I am not happy about it. The object of this Bill is to facilitate the flow of traffic north and south, and vice versa, between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, and if we insert in the Bill qualifications about the action of the highway authority in closing streets we are also limiting action which would help to speed the flow of traffic.
Pitt's Head Mews is a very narrow street, and it surely is not necessary that this small street should be maintained so that traffic can turn left going down Park Lane. As soon as we have traffic turning right or left we encourage an impediment to the free flow of traffic, and it is only the possibility of the hotel being built that has caused this Amendment to be drafted. It seems to us that there has been some pressure and lobbying by the interests concerned in order to get this Amendment made.
Hertford Street is equally not by any means a main thoroughfare. It is used to a considerably smaller extent, and it seems undesirable that these exceptions should be made. I cannot understand why the L.C.C., which will be the authority in this connection, should not be left complete freedom to decide which streets shall be closed and which shall not be closed.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us where this hotel is to be built. I understood that it had not yet been authorised. If it is to be built and it is necessary to have traffic facilities for the setting down and picking up of people arriving at and departing from the hotel, I should have thought it was incumbent on the hotel itself to provide those facilities and not for an exception to be made so that particular streets should be made available for that purpose.
It is highly desirable, where new buildings are constructed in the centre of London, that there should be adequate facilities for the setting down and picking up of persons using those buildings, and, equally, adequate garage facilities. In this case, a special privilege is being granted to a particular interest, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to give a better justification than he has yet given.

Mr. Nugent: By leave of the House, may I say that the Amendment will not do more than clarify what is the present intention of the development authority. The access of these two streets is not direct on to the new Park Lane carriageway, but to a sort of backwater which is shut off from the main carriageway itself. Certainly I have no doubt that, if and when the hotel is built, one of the requirements on which the planning authority will insist will be arrangements for picking up and setting down within the curtilage of the hotel itself, so the hon. Member need have little doubt about the L.C.C. taking care of that.
The provision does no more than is already contemplated by the L.C.C., and the hon. Member's fears can be set at rest, for it will not, in fact, interfere with the general flow of traffic on the new carriageway.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15.—(IMPROVEMENTS TO BECOME HIGHWAYS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 21, at end insert:
(5) If, within the period of five years immediately following the issue of a certificate in respect of a work under subsection (1) of this section, any subsidence of the work occurs the Council may, if an authority other than the Council is under a duty to maintain the work at the time of the subsidence, contribute towards the expenses incurred by that authority in making good the work.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable London County Council to contribute towards the cost of making good damage caused to any of the authorised works by subsidence if the subsidence occurs within the first five years of the issue of a certificate in respect of the work in question. The provision follows the form of similar provisions which have appeared in the L.C.C. Acts with road

works, and it will simply meet a practical need.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 16.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PARKLAND FORMING SITE OF, OR ADJACENT TO, NEW HIGHWAYS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 46, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply as respects the functions of the Minister of Works in relation to the maintenance of the Wellington Arch and the Marble Arch, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, that Minister shall continue to exercise those functions notwithstanding that the land forming the sites of the said Arches has ceased to form part either of Hyde Park or the Green Park.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The two arches, that is, Marble Arch and Wellington Arch, will in future be outside the Royal Parks when the total scheme is completed. The Amendment does no more than ensure that, even though they are outside the Royal Parks, the Minister of Works will still be responsible for their maintenance and care.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The Bill has now been before the House for a considerable period, and throughout that time it has been perfectly well known to every hon. Member that the arches would be outside the Royal Parks once the Bill was on the Statute Book. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how it is that the Government have realised that only belatedly and have only now taken steps that should obviously have been taken at a much earlier stage?

Mr. Nugent: It would be very difficult for me to say how it is that every point which may appear here escaped our attention before. It is quite obvious that these arches would be outside, and equally obvious that they should be left in the care of the Ministry of Works. That was always the intention. But that point had not been picked up until these deliberations were proceeding in another place. It was picked up there, and we have now been able to deal with it, and I hope that the House will agree that we have done so in a sensible way.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause A.—(CERTAIN LAND TO BECOME PART OF HYDE PARK.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 22, at end insert new Clause "A":
(1) At such time as, by virtue of section fifteen of this Act, the Apsley carriageway becomes a highway, any land situate to the west thereof, being land comprised in the Piccadilly lands, shall, if all interests therein are then vested in the Crown, become part of Hyde Park and accordingly be thereafter under the management of the Minister of Works.
(2) In this section 'the Piccadilly lands' has the same meaning as in section six of this Act.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Only about half No. 148 Piccadilly will be needed for the new Apsley carriageway, and the Amendment will have the effect of bringing the remaining half of the site of No. 148 Piccadilly into Hyde Park, which it adjoins. All the authorities concerned have agreed that it is a sensible arrangement to include this strip of land, which would not otherwise be used, in Hyde Park.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the fact that the Bill causes certain parts of the Royal Parks to be taken over for the purpose of facilitating traffic flow in London—the need for which we all accept—it is very gratifying to know that at least some land is to revert to the Ministry of Works and is to be incorporated in Hyde Park. The Minister stated that only half No. 148 Piccadilly would be taken over. What is to happen to the other half of the house? He says that it will become part of Hyde Park, but we presume that the house itself will be pulled down and that what will come to Hyde Park will not be half the house but half the land, which will be converted into parkland, as part of Hyde Park.

Mr. Nugent: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, that is correct. Half the site will fall into the new Apsley carriageway and the other half, surplus to the carriageway, will be brought into Hyde Park.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 17.—(POWER TO MAKE BYELAWS AS RESPECTS THE UNDERPASS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 28, leave out "thereunder" and insert
for the purposes mentioned therein".

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, which is designed to make it quite clear that the byelaws dealing with the particulars mentioned in connection with the underpass in subsection (2) can be made only for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1).

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 15, line 40, leave out "subsection (1) of".—[Special Entry.]

In page 16, line 9, leave out "subsection (1) of".

New Clause B.—(MAINTENANCE OF UNDERPASS VENTILATING SYSTEM.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 14, at end insert new Clause "B".
(1) The highway authority for the Under pass shall be under a duty to maintain the Underpass (ventilating tunnel) and any works carried out under section three of this Act for the purpose of providing for the ventilation of the Underpass.
(2) The said authority, in discharging their duty under this section, shall not carry out work involving interference with the Wellington Arch or with land under or within 10 yards (measured in any direction) of the said Arch except with the consent and to the satisfaction of the Minister of Works.
(3) Where it appears to the Minister of Works that repairs are needed for safeguarding the structure of the Wellington Arch or otherwise in connection therewith and that the repairs ought to have been carried out by the said authority in discharge of their duty under this section, the Minister, after giving twenty-eight days' notice to the authoriy (or in the case of emergency such notice as may be practicable), may provide for the carrying out of the repairs and may recover the reasonable cost thereof from the authority.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment does two things. First, it provides for the maintenance of the ventilating tunnel and the associated works, and secondly, it safeguards the Wellington Arch both from external interference in carrying out such maintenance and from neglect to carry out repairs to the Arch in connection with the maintenance works on the ventilating system.
As the House will recollect, the ventilating shaft from the underpass tunnels is to be brought up inside the Wellington Arch in such a way that it will not


show. It will simply have an orifice in the top through which the ventilation will come. The Amendment is designed to give effect to that.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: This Amendment shows the foolishness of leaving the arch in the position in which it is proposed to leave it. It is in a wholly unsuitable position and on the processional way which will wind across the middle of the open space which will be left when these improvements are effected.
We find ourselves in some difficulty tonight through the absence of any spokesman from the Ministry of Works. The Ministry suffered severe handling by the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) on the last occasion when we had the Measure before us, and so it is not surprising that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary is present tonight. Under the rather difficult circumstances, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to explain this question of the ventilation shaft which is to come up through the Wellington Arch.
I wish to ask what is to be the size of the shaft; how it is to be taken through the Wellington Arch; whether it will impede progress through the arch and whether—I put this in the most delicate way possible—all the necessary consents from interested parties have been obtained?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Before the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies to my hon. Friend, perhaps he would consider another point. He will recall that during the Committee stage we discussed who was to be responsible for the underpass. According to the terms of the Bill, the highway authority responsible in the first place is the London County Council, but once the construction has been completed the Westminster City Council becomes the highway authority. I understand, however, that the London County Council will remain the authority for the underpass.
If he can, I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain why it is necessary for this confusion of authorities to be persisted in. We are to have the Westminster City Council responsible for the various highways which will emerge when the scheme is

completed. The London County Council will be responsible for the underpass because it is the tunnel authority for London; and there will be the Marylebone, or the Paddington Borough Council—I forget which—responsible for certain of the roadways in the Marble Arch area. It seems absurd that there should not be one authority for this area which, after all, is considered as an entity from the point of view of the Bill. Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say why it is necessary for the London County Council to retain authority for the underpass and this ventilating tunnel, and why it cannot be handed over to the Westminster City Council so that it may be the sole authority responsible for this area?

Mr. Nugent: I ask the leave of the House to reply. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has raised this matter before. There is power under the Bill for the London County Council to transfer responsibility for the underpass to the highway authority, the Westminster City Council, if it wishes. But it is the view of the County Council, which we accept, that it should be responsible for the underpass. It is the tunnel authority for London. There are a number of river tunnels for which it is responsible. It has engineers who thoroughly understand all the various problems connected with tunnels and their ventilation. In the circumstances, the County Council considers that it should retain responsibility for these fairly lengthy underpasses.
There is a strong case to be made out for that. I accept the argument that it would be convenient for the whole area to be in the hands of one highway authority, but on the other hand, in the case of the Thames tunnels, the County Council has an arrangement whereby it is responsible for the tunnel, and the highway authority responsible at either end. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman can be assured that no difficulty arises, in practice, in having this division of responsibility, and that there are special technical problems involved that justify it.
Turning to the various questions raised by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) about the ventilating shafts, I am afraid that I am not able to tell him now what the size of


the shaft will be, but it will be constructed inside one of the pillars, as it were, of the Wellington Arch itself, so that it will in no way impede the opening through the arch. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman observed, the arch has been kept for processional purposes, and a way is left through the middle of the new island so that processions can go through.
I do not think that there is any argument that the arch should have been moved. Indeed, if it had been moved, we should have been left with the fearful problem of where on earth to put the shaft in such a way that it would not be offensive to the community. But, by the ingenious putting of the shaft inside the arch it will be quite invisible. It will come within the massive structure of one side of the arch, and it will have an open orifice at the top which will not in any way affect the elevation of the arch.
In that way, the beauty and the amenity of the arch will be preserved, and yet we will have a fully effective ventilating shaft, which we must have, of course, for the underpasses. I can, therefore, assure the House that this is really quite an ingenious arrangement for surmounting a difficult problem, and I am glad to say that we have had no difficulty in obtaining the consents of all the authorities concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 37, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply as respects expenses incurred by the Council in making contributions under subsection (5) of section fifteen of this Act.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment adding the additional subsection (5) to Clause 15.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C.—(FOR PROTECTION OF BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 7, at end insert new Clause "C":
.—(1) In this section—
the Commission" means the British Transport Commission;
the engineer" means an engineer to be appointed by the Commission;

plans" includes sections and descriptions;
railway property" means land belonging to or occupied by the Commission, including the railways and railway works of the Commission;
the relevant works" means so much of any of the authorised works or works under section nine of this Act as is or, when completed, will be within a distance from railway property (measured in any direction) of, in the case of surface works, ten feet or, in the case of the Underpass or any other underground works, fifty feet.
(2) The Council shall not, under the powers of this Act, acquire compulsorily any lands of the Commission but the Council may acquire compulsorily such easements and rights in the lands of the Commission as they may reasonably require for the purposes of the relevant works.
(3) The Council shall, except in case of emergency, give the engineer twenty-eight days' notice of their intention to commence any of the relevant works, and those works shall be carried out with all reasonable despatch under the supervision (if given) and to the reasonable satisfaction of the engineer in accordance with plans (in this section referred to as "the approved plans")—

(a) which have been approved by the engineer, or
(b) as respects which the engineer has not, within twenty-eight days after the plans have been delivered by the Council to the Commission, given notice to the Council either approving or rejecting them, or
(c) which, after being rejected by the engineer, have been settled by arbitration under this section.

(4) The Council shall not, in carrying out any of the relevant works, cause avoidable damage to railway property or unnecessarily interfere with the conduct of traffic on the railways of the Commission or the use by passengers of railway property; and if, in carrying out any of those works, the Council cause damage to railway property or interfere with the conduct of traffic on the railways of the Commission or the use by passengers of railway property, then, notwithstanding that the works were carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the engineer, the Commission shall be entitled to recover from the Council the amount of any loss thereby suffered by the Commission.
(5) The Council shall afford reasonable facilities to the engineer for access to any of of the relevant works while they are being carried out by the Council and shall supply to the engineer all such information as he may reasonably require with regard to those works.
(6) If the nature of any of those of the relevant works which consist of underground works is such that it is reasonable that any part thereof should be carried out by the Commission instead of by the Council, and the Commission give notice to the Council to that effect within twenty-eight days after the plans of the relevant works have been delivered, with a view to their approval by the


engineer, by the Council to the Commission, then—

(a) if the Council desire that part to be carried out it shall be carried out by the Commission, acting as agents of the Council, in accordance with the approved plans, and with all reasonable despatch, and
(b) the Commission shall be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of carrying it out from the Council.

(7) If it appears to the Commission that the nature of any of the relevant works is such that it is reasonable that, before the work is carried out, preliminary work should be carried out to ensure the stability of railway property or protect it from injury, or to avoid delay or other inconvenience to railway passengers, and the Commission give notice to the Council to that effect, specifying the required preliminary work, within twenty-eight days after the plans of the relevant works have been delivered, with a view to their approval by the engineer, by the Council to the Commission, then—

(a) the preliminary work shall be carried out by the Commission with all reasonable despatch,
(b) the Council shall not commence the relevant works until the engineer has given them notice that the preliminary work has been completed, and
(c) the Commission shall be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of carrying out the preliminary work from the Council.

(8) The Commission shall be entitled to recover from the Council any expenses incurred by the Commission—

(a) in respect of the employment of persons whom it may be necessary or desirable to appoint for inspecting or watching any railway property affected by the carrying out of the relevant works and for preventing or dealing with any interference, obstruction or danger arising in the course of carrying out those works; and
(b) in providing lighting on railway property, being lighting made necessary or desirable by the carrying out of those works.

(9) If, during the period beginning with the commencement of the relevant works and ending twelve months after the completion of those works, any alteration or addition to railway property situated within or adjacent to the limits of deviation shown on the deposited plans is, in the opinion of the Commission, made necessary by reason of the carrying out of the relevant works, the Commission shall give to the Council twenty-eight days' notice (or in the case of emergency such notice as may be practicable) before beginning to carry out that alteration or addition and shall be entitled to recover from the Council the reasonable cost of carrying it out; and if the alteration or addition is likely to give rise to an increase or a reduction in the cost of maintaining, working and renewing such railway property as aforesaid the Commission shall be entitled to recover from the Council a capital sum equivalent to that increase or, as the case may be, shall pay to the Council a capital sum equivalent to that reduction.

(10) The Commission shall afford reasonable facilities to the Council for access to any works carried out by the Commission under the foregoing provisions of this section and shall supply the Council with all such information as they may reasonably require with regard to those works.
(11) If an authority charged by virtue of this Act with the duty of maintaining any of those of the relevant works which consist of underground works is in default of that duty, the Commission may, after giving reasonable notice of the default to that authority, carry out such work as may be necessary to remedy the default, and shall be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of carrying out that work from the authority in default.
(12) If, by reason of any of the relevant works, damage is caused to railway property or the Commission otherwise suffer loss in relation to their railway undertaking then, notwithstanding that the work in question was carried out by the Commission on behalf of the Council, or was carried out by the Council in accordance with the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the engineer, the Commission shall be entitled to recover from the Council the amount of that loss:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

(a) as respects loss arising by reason of a claim made by any person against the Commission unless reasonable notice of the claim was given by the Commission to the Council and, in a case where the claim was compromised, the Council agreed to the compromise;
(b) as respects loss caused by the negligence of the Commission or of any servant or contractor employed by them.

(13) Any dispute arising under this section shall be settled by arbitration.
(14) The Council and the Commission may, by agreement in writing, provide that this section shall have effect as if any provision thereof specified in the agreement were omitted.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause contains certain detailed provisions for the protection of the British Transport Commission, and is aimed particularly at protecting the Commission's railway property at Hyde Park Corner and at Marble Arch. The Commission's greatest concern, of course, is the large-scale excavations required for the two tunnels at Hyde Park Corner, and the proximity those must have to its railway station at Hyde Park Corner, and, indeed, to the Underground itself. They come very close. This type of Clause is common to works Bills is in the usual form, and has been agreed in detail with the Commission.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If this Clause is in the usual form, why was it not included in the original Bill? What I cannot understand is that here we have a new Clause consisting of about 140 lines and it is only now presented to this House. If the Commission has to be protected and given safeguards—as we all agree that it should—then at an earlier stage of these proceedings the Ministry of Transport should have realised that and have incorporated the safeguards in the original Bill as presented to this House.
Of course, we know full well that one of the explanations is that the Government kept changing their mind over this. In the first place, they presented the Bill without the underpasses. Then, because the Opposition were on their toes, the Government realised the necessity for the underpass at Hyde Park Corner. The Ministry accepted that. It accepted the one underpass. Then it had second thoughts and decided that it would have two. In the meantime, it had forgotten all about the existence of the British Transport Commission and the fact that if it built these two underpasses at Hyde Park Corner the work would interfere with the Tube station there. Having suddenly discovered that, the London Transport Commission, presumably, quite naturally came along to the Ministry and said, "Look here, we want to be sure that we are not going to be harmed by the construction of the underpasses which at this late stage you have suddenly decided are necessary."
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Clause has been agreed with the Commission, whether the Commission is satisfied that there will not be undue interference with the Hyde Park Corner station, that the works can proceed without undue interference with the operation of the Piccadilly Line there, and that it is quite satisfied that it is fully covered by the Clause.
It seems to me that it is certainly necessary that the Commission should be fully indemnified against any damage or loss which the Clause seems to provide. It seems most peculiar that only when the Bill goes to the other place and goes before a Select Committee, where, presumably, the Commission had the opportunity of making its representations, that this was agreed to.
This is one of those Clauses which were discussed and agreed on by the Select Committee, and we in this House have no knowledge of the arguments put forward on either side. The Clause, presumably proposed by the Government, was there accepted, and yet we in this House have no knowledge of the arguments put forward on either side.

Mr. Nugent: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
This new Clause proposed by the British Transport Commission was not opposed by us or by anyone else in another place. Indeed, it was readily accepted and agreed in detail with ourselves. I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenious argument that he thought up to remind us that we had changed our minds on more than one occasion with regard to the provision of underpasses. I can assure him, however, that that was not the reason for the Clause not being included in the Bill in the first place. It could not be included.
The procedure is that the Bill is published without the Commission having formal knowledge of what is going to appear in it. We are not at liberty as a Government Department to consult any outside interests, although we know that they have an interest of this kind. Even the Commission must be in the position of any other statutory authority in these matters. Therefore, the Commission cannot make its objection until the Bill is actually published. At that stage it is able to make its objection, and the objection can be taken care of.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not suggesting that the Government worked out the scheme for Hyde Park Corner and drew up the Bill without consulting the Commission which would be very substantially affected both as regards surface traffic, the London Transport buses, and also as regards its underground traffic as far as the tube railways are concerned. Surely there was some consultation with the Commission before the Bill was prepared.

Mr. Nugent: Of course, the Commission's point of view in regard to the railways and, indeed, to its bus traffic, was very carefully considered in the whole design and conception, but formal provision for these matters in a statutory way


cannot be provided for until after the Bill has been published. That is common form. After the Bill has been published, then the Commission can come formally forward with its objection. That is then met by a Clause which is put into the Bill, in a form which is virtually common form in these circumstances and which is agreed in every detail between us.
I can assure the House that we are here following normal procedure. The fact that the Clause was not in the Bill before was not due to any inadvertence or mistake on our part. I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements here indicated in the Clause met fully every point that the Commission wished to have covered. They have been discussed in detail and agreed, and the Commission is satisfied that with that coverage the underpasses can be constructed, close though they go the station and to the railway, and that their operations will not be interfered with.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "D".—(FOR PROTECTION OF CERTAIN STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "D".
(1) In this section—
apparatus," in relation to any of the undertakers other than the London Electricity Board, means mains, pipes or other apparatus belonging to or maintained by the undertakers, or, in relation to the London Electricity Board, means any electric lines or works (as respectively defined in the Electric Lighting Act, 1882) belonging to or maintained by the Board; and, in relation to any of the undertakers, includes works constructed for the lodging therein of apparatus;
in", in a context referring to apparatus in a street or other land, includes a reference to apparatus under, over, across, along or upon it;
the undertakers" means the Metropolitan Water Board, the North Thames Gas Board, the London Hydraulic Power Company and the London Electricity Board, or any of them, as the case may require.
(2) Where, in consequence of the construction of any of the following works, that is to say, the Underpass, the Underpass (ventilating tunnel) and any subway constructed under section one of this Act, apparatus situated in or adjacent to land forming the site of that work is required to be so diverted as to pass under the work, then—

(a) the undertakers shall be entitled to recover from the Council any additional expenses reasonably incurred by the undertakers in consequence of the diversion in

breaking open or reinstating any street or in inspecting, maintaining, repairing, removing or renewing the apparatus, and
(b) without prejudice to the generality of the preceding paragraph, the North Thames Gas Board shall be entitled to recover from the Council any expenses reasonably incurred by that Board in providing, installing, inspecting and maintaining any siphon the provision of which is necessary in consequence of the diversion.

(3) Where a street in which apparatus is situated has been permanently stopped up or diverted by the Council under the powers conferred by this Act the undertakers shall continue to have the same powers and rights in respect of the apparatus remaining in the land which by reason of the stopping up or diversion has ceased to be a street as they would have had if it had remained a street:
Provided that the undertakers shall, if the Council reasonably so require—

(a) remove the apparatus and relay or replace it in the street (if any) substituted for the street so stopped up or diverted or in such other position as the undertakers may reasonably determine; or
(b) provide in the street (if any) so substituted or in such other position as aforesaid other apparatus in place of the existing apparatus.

(4) The undertakers shall be entitled to recover from the Council any expenses reasonaly incurred by the undertakers in carrying out such works as are referred to in the proviso to the last preceding subsection (whether or not the Council have required those works to be carried out), including expenses so incurred in cutting off any apparatus from any other apparatus and in doing any work rendered necessary in consequence of such cutting-off or in consequence of the carrying out of the said works:
Provided that subsections (3) and (4) of section twenty-three of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950 (which impose limitations on undertakers' rights to payment) shall so far as applicable extend and apply to any payment to be made by the Council under this subsection as if the works in respect of which the payment is to be made were such undertakers' works as are referred to in the said subsection (3) and as if in that subsection for the words "specified as so necessary in a specification of the works settled under Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act or agreed so to be by the promoting authority" there were substituted the words "agreed or settled by arbitration under section (For protection of certain statutory undertakers.) of the Park Lane Improvement Act, 1958".
(5) The temporary stopping up or diversion of a street under the powers conferred by section nine of this Act shall not prejudice or affect the right of the undertakers:—

(a) to maintain, operate, inspect, repair, renew or remove any apparatus which at the time of the stopping up or diversion was in the street, or
(b) for the purpose of such maintenance, operation, inspection, repair, renewal or removal to enter upon or break open the street.



(6) In exercising their powers under section three of this Act the Council shall cause as little inconvenience in relation to access by the undertakers to apparatus as the circumstances of the case will admit.
(7) Any dispute arising under this section shall be settled by arbitration, and if the parties to the dispute are unable to agree on an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be such person as may be appointed on the application of a party to the dispute (after notice in writing to the other party thereto) by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
(8) The Council and any of the undertakers may, by agreement in writing, provide that this section shall have effect in relation to those undertakers as if any provision thereof specified in the agreement were omitted.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is not dissimilar in its general intention. This Clause gives protection to the four statutory undertakers, the Metropolitan Water Board, the North Thames Gas Board, the London Hydraulic Power Company and the London Electricity Board. These undertakers are particularly anxious to protect themselves against any disturbance to their mains, especially, of course, at Hyde Park Corner where there are bound to be rather big disturbances in the construction of the underpass, and, in order to make certain of the safeguards that they wanted, the undertakers petitioned against the Bill. They withdrew their petition on the understanding that this Clause, which was agreed with them after very considerable discussion, also involving the L.C.C. and the Ministry of Works, was introduced by us as it now appears. It fully covers all their points and will provide a satisfactory solution.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Consideration of the Lords Amendment in the Title, line 1, postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Lords Amendments.—[Mr. Neave.]

New Clause "A".—(AMENDMENTS AS TO NATURE OF LIABILITY LIMITED BY MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, s. 503.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, at end insert New Clause "A":
(1) In subsection (1) of section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs (c) and (d)—
(c) where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to any person not carried in the ship through the act or omission of any person (whether on board the ship or not) in the navigation or management of the ship or in the loading, carriage or discharge of its cargo or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of its passengers, or through any other act or omission of any person on board the ship;
(d) where any loss or damage is caused to any property (other than any property mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection) or any rights are infringed through the act or omission of any person (whether on board the ship or not) in the navigation or management of the ship, or in the loading, carriage or discharge of its cargo or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of its passengers, or through any other act or omission of any person on board the ship;
and for the words "loss of or damage to vessels, goods, merchandise or other things", both where they occur in paragraph (i) and where they occur in paragraph (ii), there shall be substituted the words "such loss, damage or infringement as is mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this subsection".
(2) For the purposes of the said subsection (1), where any obligation or liability arises—

(a) in connection with the raising, removal or destruction of any ship which is sunk, stranded or abandoned or of anything on board such a ship, or
(b) in respect of any damage (however caused) to harbour works, basins or navigable waterways,

the occurrence giving rise to the obligation or liability shall be treated as one of the occurrences mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (d) of that subsection, and the obligation or liability as a liability to damages.
(3) The application of the said section five hundred and three to any liability shall not be excluded by reason only that the occurrence giving rise to the liability was not due to the negligence of any person.


(4) Nothing in the said section five hundred and three shall apply to any liability in respect of loss of life or persona] injury caused to, or loss of or damage to any property or infringement of any right of, a person who is on board or employed in connection with the ship under a contract of service with all or any of the persons whose liabilities are limited by that section, if that contract is governed by the law of any country outside the United Kingdom and that law either does not set any limit to that liability or sets a limit exceeding that set to it by that section.
(5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall not come into force until such day as the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(6) The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation may by order make provision for the setting up and management of a fund, to be used for the making to harbour or conservancy authorities of payments needed to compensate them for the reduction, in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section, of amounts recoverable by them in respect of the obligations and liabilities mentioned in that paragraph, and to be maintained by contributions from such authorities raised and collected by them in respect of vessels in like manner as other sums so raised by them; and any such order may contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient.
(7) The power to make an order under subsection (6) of this section shall include power to vary or revoke any such order by a subsequent order and any such power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

11.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) and for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham), who were the promoters of this Bill, originally began it with a Clause which only covered part of the Convention signed at Brussels in October, 1957, on the limitation of shipowners' liability. The Government gave undertakings on the Second and Third Readings of this Bill to introduce Amendments both in this House and in another place. We now have before us this Amendment and others which give effect to that Convention.
This new Clause gives effect to Article 1 of the 1957 Brussels Convention, and subsection (1) will supersede Section 503 (1, c and d) of the Merchant Shipping Act,

1894, and Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1900. It will remove certain anomalies. I would, if I were given leave of the House, be prepared to answer any questions on the various subsections in this Clause.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: I rise as one of the supporters of this Private Member's Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest), to welcome this Amendment. It has been inserted in another place so as to give effect to Article I of the International Convention on the Limitation of Liability of Seagoing Ships which was signed by the United Kingdom in October of last year.
This is a new Clause which has required intricate and careful drafting and the result has been the insertion of the new provisions into the existing law by reference to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has explained these provisions to the House, and I do not propose to add anything to what he has said. I should like, however, with your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, to mention one of the latter Amendments by which the Act will be extended to Northern Ireland. This Measure will change the law of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part, and it is clearly desirable that the change should be made by one and not by two Acts of Parliament. That is the reason for the insertion of the new Clause, which Northern Ireland welcomes.
It may seem strange that no single line of the original Bill published on 20th November, 1957, now remains. But the principle which underlies the original Bill and on which it was based, does remain. The supporters of the Bill welcome the Amendments which have already been made, and those others which, I trust, the House is about to approve. The supporters would like to express their thanks to the Government for the help which they have given to this Private Member's Bill and for the extensive Amendments which they have moved, to the Opposition for their help and support, and to the great number of individuals, some in their official capacity and some as private persons, who have worked to


bring about this major reform in our shipping law.
This is the last lap in the race, and I trust that the House will approve these Amendments so that the Bill may be placed on the Statute Book before the month ends.

Sir Frank Soskice: We have just listened to a very moving speech from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) about the changed form of the Bill, and I feel sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree with the Government in their general purpose of giving effect to a number of the other provisions of the Convention signed in October, 1957, and in extending the scope of the original Bill which was first introduced.
Before we part from this proposed new Clause, I want to put to the Minister one or two quite short questions. In the first place, as regards the new paragraphs (c) and (d) which are to be inserted into Section 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as I read them, they extend the principle of limitation of liability to on-shore injuries and to on-shore damage to property. I take it that that is provided for in the Convention, but I should be grateful if the Minister would point to the provision in the Amendment which so provides. As I understand the law, this is a considerable extension of the existing principles relating to limitation of liability which do not at the moment affect on-shore injuries or on-shore damage to property.
My second question relates to subsection (6) of the proposed new Clause. The Government, as I understand it, propose to set up a fund which is, in effect, to be available to compensate harbour and conservancy authorities for the scaling down of claims which they may have by reason of the operations of the limitation provisions. I should like to ask the Minister to give us some indication of the proposed workings of the fund. I see that it is to be fed by contributions from the authorities for whose benefit it is to be constituted. Can he say what its approximate magnitude will be or give some indication of the nature or scale of the contributions? In general, can he say, roughly, how the fund is to be worked and as from what date it is to be in operation?
Subject to replies on those two questions, speaking for myself—I think that I can speak also for my right hon. and hon. Friends—we recognise that the Government are right in introducing the new Clause.

Mr. Neave: By leave of the House, I would say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does raise quite important points which I think should be explained. His first was about subsection (1) and the fact that it would extend the circumstances in which one can limit liability. The important point is that it will remove the anomaly in our present law that liability for damage to property on shore may be limited but liability for death or injury on shore may not. It removes that anomaly. That is the important point of subsection (1).
His next question was about subsection (6). I refer him to subsection (2). We have given an undertaking in connection with the Convention that subsection (2, a) which extends the limitation to wreck liability will not be brought into force until an agreed scheme is drawn up under subsection (6) to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He asked exactly how that liability fund would be brought about and operated. I do not think I can tell him the scale at the moment. He will probably note that it is worded in such a way that the Minister is given a fair degree of flexibility in making this scheme, and the scheme will not be set up until it has been agreed with both the harbour authorities and the shipowners. That is the position at the present.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B.—(EXTENSION TO OTHER PERSONS OF PROVISIONS APPLYING TO SHIPOWNERS.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "B":

(1) The persons whose liability in connection with a ship is excluded or limited by Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall include any charterer and any person interested in or in possession of the ship, and, in particular, any manager or operator of the ship.
(2) In relation to a claim arising from the act or omission of any person in his capacity as master or member of the crew or (otherwise than in that capacity) in the course of his employment as a servant of the owners or of any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section,—

(a) the persons whose liability is excluded or limited as aforesaid shall also


include the master, member of the crew or servant, and, in a case where the master or member of the crew is the servant of a person whose liability would not be excluded or limited apart from this paragraph, the person whose servant he is; and
(b) the liability of the master, member of the crew or servant himself shall be excluded or limited as aforesaid notwithstanding his actual fault or privity in that capacity, except in the cases mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section five hundred and two of the said Act of 1894.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsections (1) and (2) both give effect to important provisions of Article 6 (2) of the Convention.

Sir F. Soskice: I should have thought that this was a proper change in the existing system of our law. As I understand the existing provisions as to limitation they only affect or relieve the owners and some charterers. As I read it the purpose of the Lords Amendment is to extend the relief given by the limitation provisions broadly to all persons who may be affected and who might be amenable to a claim for damages if, as our law at present stands, unable to avail themselves of the provisions limiting liability. That, I think, is right.

Mr. Neave: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. This is an important change in our law. It will enable any person who is interested in or in possession of a ship to limit his liability. That would apply to caretakers and harbour authorities who for some reason or another move a ship under powers contained in local Statutes.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "C".—(UNREGISTERED SHIPS AND SHIPS IN COURSE OF COMPLETION OR CONSTRUCTION.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert New Clause "C":

C.—(1) Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall apply to any structure, whether completed or in course of completion, launched and intended for use in navigation as a ship or part of a ship, and the expression "ship" in the said Part VIII and in this Act shall be construed accordingly.
(2) The said Part VIII shall apply to any British ship notwithstanding that it has not yet been registered.
(3) The tonnage of any ship or structure to which the said Part VIII applies by virtue of this section shall, for the purposes of that

Part, be ascertained as provided by subsection (2) of section five hundred and three of the said Act of 1894 with regard to foreign ships.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause relates specifically to unregistered ships and ships in course of completion or construction and extends the application of limitation of liability to structures which have been launched provided they are intended to be used in navigation as ships or parts of a ship. There is a reference to a part of a ship. It is intended to cover the launching of a ship in two parts or of new parts of a damaged ship. There are one or two other matters, and if any hon. Member wishes to raise questions I will answer them, by leave of the House.

Sir F. Soskice: There was, I noted, in another place some considerable textual criticism of this new Clause, centring around the reference to parts of a ship. I would simply ask the Government whether they have since the debate in another place given full consideration to the questions which were raised by noble lords and whether they are satisfied that the language chosen in this Amendment is quite the best which can be conceived and that the doubts to which expression was given really should not turn out so formidable as they at first sight seemed.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Neave: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. I have just said that the reference to a part of a ship, which was what worried certain noble Lords, is intended to cover the separate launching of two parts of a ship and new parts of a damaged ship.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "D".—(RELEASE OF SHIT, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "D":
—(1) Where a ship or other property is arrested in connection with a claim which appears to the court to be founded on a liability to which a limit is set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or security is given to prevent or obtain release from such an arrest, the court may, and in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) of this section shall, order the release of the ship, property or security, if


the conditions specified in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied; but where the release is ordered the person on whose application it is ordered shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the claim (or, in Scotland, to have prorogated that jurisdiction).
(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that security which in the opinion of the court is satisfactory (in this section referred to as "guarantee") has previously been given, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, in respect of the said liability or any other liability incurred on the same occasion and the court is satisfied that, if the claim is established, the amount for which the guarantee was given or such part thereof as corresponds to the claim will be actually available to the claimant; and
(b) that either the guarantee is for an amount not less than the said limit or further security is given which, together with the guarantee, is for an amount not less than that limit.

(3) The circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are that the guarantee was given in a port which, in relation to the claim, is the relevant port (or, as the case may be, a relevant port) and that that port is in a Convention country.
(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a guarantee given by the giving of security in more than one country shall be deemed to have been given in the country in which security was last given;
(b) any question whether the amount of any security is (either by itself or together with any other amount) not less than any limit set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be decided as at the time at which the security is given;
(c) where part only of the amount for which a guarantee was given will be available to a claimant that part shall not be taken to correspond to his claim if any other part may be available to a claimant in respect of a liability to which no limit is set as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

(5) In this section—
Convention country" means any country in respect of which the Convention is in force (including any country to which the Convention extends by virtue of Article 14 thereof);
relevant port"—

(a) in relation to any claim, means the port where the event giving rise to the claim occurred or, if that event did not occur in a port, the first port of call after the event occurred; and
(b) in relation to a claim for loss of life or personal injury or for damage to cargo, includes the port of disembarkation or discharge.

the Convention" means the International Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships signed in Brussels on the tenth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven

(6) If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that any country specified in the Order is a Convention country within the meaning of this section, the Order shall, while in force, be conclusive evidence that the country is a Convention country; but any Order in Council under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
(7) In the application of this section to Scotland the references to arrest shall be construed as referring to arrestment on the dependence of an action or in rem and for the references to release from arrest or to the ordering of such a release there shall be substituted references to the recall of an arrestment.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Clause contains what are perhaps the most complex provisions of the Bill. It relates to the release of a ship in certain circumstances. It is designed to prevent ships being arrested, or security having to be given, more than once in respect of the same occurrence. It lays down certain conditions which have to be fulfilled if the court is to be empowered to release a ship or security. These conditions are intended to protect the interest of the claimant by ensuring that a full and proper proportion of the security which has been already given elsewhere is actually available to him.

Sir F. Soskice: This new Clause again, as I understand, is to give further effect to the Convention. The only question that I want to put is one that is analogous to that which I put on the previous proposed new Clause. Having regard to the complexity of the matter I will not develop it, but I will put the question shortly in this way. The noble Lord Lord Merriman in another place was concerned with certain aspects of the Clause and felt somewhat uncertain about how it might work out in the circumstances which he described. I ask whether—and I assume that it is the case—the Government have fully considered the doubts raised by the noble Lord and are satisfied that the Clause in the present form meets the difficulties to which he gave expression.

Mr. Neave: I have read the noble Lord Lord Merriman's speech and it has been considered by those concerned with the Bill in my Department. A number of conditions are now laid down as a result of consultation at the time when Lord Merriman made his speech. They have to be fulfilled before a ship can be


released. There is a fourth condition, which I did not mention earlier. If that, too, is fulfilled the court will be obliged to release the ship or security, and there is further protection for claimants in the provision at the end of subsection (1). We took into account everything that Lord Merriman said on the point.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause E.—(RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT AFTER GIVING OF SECURITY.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "E":

(1) No judgment or decree for a claim founded on a liability to which a limit is set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be enforced, except so far as it is for costs (or, in Scotland, expenses) if security for an amount not less than the said limit has been given, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, in respect of the liability or any other liability incurred on the same occasion and the court is of opinion that the security is satisfactory and is satisfied that the amount for which it was given or such part thereof as corresponds to the claim will be actually available to the person in whose favour the judgment or decree was given or made.
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) any question whether the amount of any security is not less than any limit set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be decided as at the time at which the security is given;
(b) where part only of the amount for which security has been given will be available to the person in whose favour the judgment or decree was given or made that part shall not be taken to correspond to his claim if any other part may be available to a claimant in respect of a liability to which no limit is set as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Clause gives effect to Article 2 (4) of the Convention relating to restriction on enforcement after the giving of security.

Sir F. Soskice: I feel a little troubled about some of the language of the new Clause. It may well be that I have misconceived its purport in feeling the doubt that I have. The new Clause says that a judgment or decree in certain classes of case to which the liability provisions apply is not to be enforced in certain circumstances. They are those where it is shown that adequate security

is available and the amount of that security will
… be actually available to the person in whose favour the judgment or decree was given or made. …
I should have thought that that did not leave the judgment holder in a satisfactory position. The words are "will be actually available", and I should have thought that a judgment holder would wish to know that he was in a position to enforce his judgment unless he had the money in hand. I should have thought that what is aimed at would be that the judgment is not to be enforced unless the court is satisfied that the amount has been actually paid over. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could satisfy me on that point.

Mr. Neave: We did have in mind a situation where a blocked currency, or something of that kind, was involved. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this Clause provides, that, apart from costs, the enforcement of a judgment will be restricted if security up to the limit of liability prescribed in the Bill has been given, whether in the United Kingdom or not, and if the court is satisfied that the appropriate proportion of it will be actually—and I stress that—available to the claimant for whom judgment is given.
We have to have in mind something like a blocked currency, though the likelihood of this arising is remote. I should have thought that there was sufficient protection.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause F.—(DISTRIBUTION OF LIMITATION FUND.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "F":

(1) In making any distribution in accordance with section five hundred and four of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the court may, if it thinks fit, postpone the distribution of such part of the amount to be distributed as it deems appropriate having regard to any claims that may later be established before a court of any country outside the United Kingdom.
(2) No lien or other right in respect of any ship or property shall affect the proportions in which under the said section five hundred and four any amount is distributed amongst several claimants.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Both these subsections relate to the distribution of the limitation fund, and the first is necessary to allow the courts to take account of contingent claims abroad when distributing the limitation fund in accordance with Section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Subsection (2) gives effect to Article 3 (2) of the Convention, which provides for the distribution of the limitation fund in proportion to established claims.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause G.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)

Lords Amendment: After the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "G":
(1) In section five hundred and two of the Merchant Shipping Act. 1894, the word "seagoing" shall be omitted.
(2) For subsection (3) of section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(3) The limits set by this section to the liabilities mentioned therein shall apply to the aggregate of such liabilities which are incurred on any distinct occasion, and shall so apply in respect of each distinct occasion without regard to any liability incurred on another occasion.
(3) In section five hundred and four of the Merchant Shipping Act. 1894, for the words "in respect of loss of life, personal injury or loss of or damage to vessels or goods" there shall be substituted the words "in respect of any occurrence in respect of which his liability is limited under section five hundred and three of this Act".
(4) In Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the expression "owner" shall be construed as including, where it occurs in section five hundred and two, every person whose liability is excluded by section three of this Act, and elsewhere, except in the second place where it occurs in section five hundred and five, every person whose liability is limited by that section.
(5) In section five of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, the following shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (6)—
(a) any structure to which Part VIII of that Act is applied by section four of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958; and
and in subsection (8) for the reference to the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898, there shall be substituted a reference to sections three and four of this Act.
(6) The enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This relates to minor and consequential amendments and repeals, upon which I do not think I need say anything except on subsection (1), which removes an anomaly in our existing law under which exclusion of liability for fire and theft of valuables is restricted to sea-going ships; but limitation of liability applies to all ships.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause H.—(SAVING FOR OCCURRENCES TAKING PLACE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "H":
Nothing in this Act applies in relation to any liability arising from an occurrence which took place before the commencement of this Act.

New Clause J.—(PROVISIONS AS TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "J":

(1) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.
(2) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland the reference in section eight to the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, is a reference to that Act as it applies in Northern Ireland.
(3) For the purposes of section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (which relates to the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws), this Act shall be deemed to have been passed before the day appointed for the purposes of that section.

New Clause K.—(APPLICATION TO BRITISH POSSESSIONS, ETC.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "K":

(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act, and (so far as they do not so extend apart from the Order) the existing limitation enactments, shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the Order, to—

(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) any colony, or any country or place outside Her Majesty's dominions in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction, or any territory consisting partly of one or more colonies and partly of one or more such countries or places.

(2) In this section "the existing limitation enactments" means Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, section two of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and


Others) Act, 1900, and any incidental or supplementary provisions of any enactment applying the said Part or section.

New Schedule A.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 19, at end add new Schedule "A":


Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


"57 &amp; 58 Vict. c. 60.
The Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
In section five hundred and two, the word "sea-going".




Section five hundred and eight


61 &amp; 62 Vict. c. 14.
The Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898.
The whole Act.


63 &amp; 64 Vict. c. 32.
The Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1900.
Section one.


6 Edw. 7. c. 48.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.
Sections seventy and seventy-one.


11 &amp; 12 Geo. 5. c. 28.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1921.
Subsection (2) of section one."

Title

Postponed Lords Amendment in the Title: In line 1 leave out from beginning to "and" in line 2 and insert:
amend Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and section two of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and others) Act, 1900.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This alteration is necessary in view of the extensive Amendments made to the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before we leave this Amendment, I should like to express our thanks to the Government and to the House for the radical Amendments which have been made. Of course, we have some reservations about the principle of limitation, but we very much welcome the increase in the permitted amounts under the Bill.
That point of view is shared by the unions particularly concerned, the National Union of Seamen, the Transport and General Workers Union, and others. On their behalf and on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) on the success of his efforts and to thank the Government for the way they have been prepared to help in amending the Measure and making it much better than it would otherwise have been.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

ADOPTED CHILDREN (POLICIES OF ASSURANCE)

Resolved,
That any Act of the present Session amending the law relating to the adoption of children may, notwithstanding any resulting charge to estate duty, include provision for validating policies effected before the commencement of that Act for the benefit of adopted children under the Married Women's Property Act. 1882, and the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act. 1880.—[Mr. Simon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow: Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FISHING INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES)

11.58 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1958, dated 3rd July, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
We are putting forward two Schemes tonight and I trust that it will be convenient to the House if we discuss with this the Motion,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1958, dated 3rd July, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That will be convenient.

Mr. Godber: I am most grateful.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Will it be possible to pass one Motion and to oppose the other.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Questions will be put separately and the hon. and learned Member will be able to vote for one and against the other.

Mr. Godber: Before going on to the details of the Scheme, I should like to remind the House of our policy about fishing subsidies. The basic problem is that of the large though steadily diminishing fleet of ancient coal-burning vessels which needs to be, and is being, replaced by modern diesel or oil-fired vessels. The essential purpose of the subsidies is to help the industry with its difficult transition problem and to keep the white fish and the herring fleets in economic balance with one another during that time.
Once we are over the transition, the new fleet should be capable of operating economically, and the Government have consistently said that it is not their intention that the subsidies should be maintained permanently.
We have, of course, appointed a Committee of Inquiry under Sir Alexander Fleck to assess the size, pattern and implications of an economic fishing industry. The Committee's inquiries are proceeding actively and when the time comes, we shall consider its conclusions. Our fundamental policy remains, however, the

creation of an economic and efficient industry and we must continue to gear our subsidy policies to that aim.
The modernisation programme, which we are assisting with grants and loans for the construction of new vessels and the conversion of coal-burners to oil-fired or diesel propulsion, is coming along quite well. Since the beginning of 1953 about 160 new vessels have been added to the near and middle water fleet of trawlers and liners. In the same period, the number of coal-burners has been reduced from 675 to 298. As will be apparent from these figures, there has been a substantial decrease in the total strength of the near and middle water fleets, but because of the greater efficiency of the new trawlers, and also because of the expansion of the seiner fleet, there has not been a decrease in the quantity of fish landed. The catch was in fact larger in 1957 than in 1953.
When last year's subsidy schemes were presented to the House it was said on behalf of the Government that if the current rate of scrapping were to continue coal-burning vessels would be virtually eliminated within four years. The rate of scrapping has, however, fallen from 106 vessels in 1956 to 51 in 1957. I would ask the House to note those figures; they are significant. A good number of new vessels have been built, and the catch has increased during the past four years. We have therefore concluded that the steam trawler fleet could be allowed to run down a good deal quicker than it has done since the early part of last year without harm to the consumer and without damage to the industry, and that, indeed, it would be in the best interests of the industry as a whole for more of these old and costly vessels, one or two of which will celebrate their sixtieth birthday this year, to be scrapped.
Therefore, despite the fact that the costs of the coal-burning trawlers are likely to be somewhat higher in the next twelve months, we have felt justified in making a reduction in the subsidy to the coal-burning steam trawlers. Indeed, we felt that it was our duty to do so. The reduction, which will apply equally to the older oil-fired steam trawlers, amounts to about 15 per cent., varying from 15s. to £3 5s. per day according to the size of the vessel.
I should like now to explain the reason for a change in the subsidy to certain


modern vessels. I am referring to the steam vessels in the 130–140 ft. class, built since 1952. We propose to place these vessels on a reduced subsidy of £11 a day as compared with the present £22 a day. These vessels, of which there are at present only four, are all oil-burners, and have been built with the aid of Government grants and loans. They are a very different type from the older steam vessels and are properly to be compared in efficiency with diesel vessels of the same size, although the diesels of this size receive no subsidy at all. Subject to a review of their operation during the coming year it is our intention that these vessels should be included in the same category as the diesels next year. In the meantime we propose this substantial reduction in subsidy.
Because it is our view that modern oil-burners are in the same class as diesels, we have provided in the Scheme that, although there are as yet no modern oil-fired steam vessels under 130 ft. in length, vessels of this kind coming info operation in the future will receive the same subsidy as diesels of the corresponding size.
We are proposing no change in the rates for the diesel trawlers and liners. These are the vessels which we expect will eventually become completely self-supporting. At present they are facing competition from the more heavily subsidised steam vessels, and it has to be accepted that some of them are finding it hard to run at a profit after allowing for depreciation, which is exceptionally heavy in the early years of the life of a vessel. Nevertheless, their overall position improved last year, and we have not felt justified in increasng the subsidy.
Leaving the trawlers and liners we come to the seine net vessels. We are not altering the subsidy payable to seiners which make mainly short voyages, but for those which regularly make trips of more than seven days—the eight-day seiners—we are proposing increases of 25 per cent. in the existing rates. These vessels, most of which are based on Grimsby, receive a subsidy during the winter only. Effectively over the year as a whole they receive much less subsidy than seiners making short trips. Last year was a particularly bad one for them, and although in the fishing industry, as in any other, there have to be rough times as well as smooth, we have decided that,

as an exceptional measure, they should be given some extra help in the coming year. They are the only class to receive an increase.
The evidence we have collected about the results achieved by the inshore fishermen suggests that their position last year was not materially different from that of the previous year, and we cannot foresee any significant change in the coming year. We are therefore proposing to continue their subsidy unchanged.
So much for the subsidy rates for white fish. I should now like to mention two minor changes in the details in the Scheme which occasional experiences have made us feel to be necessary. One provides that where two or more vessels jointly operate the same gear, the weight of fish and the proceeds from its sale must be divided equally between them, and the subsidy due calculated separately for each vessel. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the catch obtained by a pair of vessels, where one is over 70 feet in length and one under, being manipulated in such a way as to enable the smaller vessel to earn the stonage rate of subsidy on all the fish caught by the pair, while the partner, although it has no fish on board, claims the daily rate of subsidy.
The second change is proposed to enable us to pay subsidy for days between the day of arrival and the day on which the sale of the catch commences only if we are satisfied that such sale is not unduly delayed.
So far as the herring fleet is concerned, after the most careful consideration of the factors involved, we have felt that it would be inappropriate to make any change this year; apart from adding a provision similar to the one in the White Fish Scheme which covers vessels jointly working the same gear.
These are our proposals for the coming year, which I wish to commend to the House. They have been formulated in the light of our general policy, which experience suggests is the right one, and which has as its aim the establishment of an economically sound and self-supporting fishing industry.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: Even at this late hour I make no apology for reiterating the complaint made by hon. Members on both sides of the House at


the attitude of the Government about providing time for debating the fishing industry. We never have a chance to discuss the problems of the industry in their widest connotation. Fishing is one of the three basic and fundamental industries, the other two being agriculture and mining, in which we wrest from nature that which nature has to give. All other industries depend more or less upon them.
Agriculture has its full meed of time and discussion and the same applies to mining. But, so far as I can remember, during the last few years it has been only once a year that, at a late hour and in a half-empty House, we have had a chance to discuss fishing problems. Even on these occasions we are circumscribed by the rules of order. The only time we can ask for information is during Question Time in the House. Only when something dramatic comes up is fishing ever mentioned. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to make a vigorous protest about the way in which the fishing industry is regarded in this House.
The problems remain and many of them are unresolved. From what the Minister has said, one must conclude that we shall have to await the Fleck Report. When will that be published? I suppose it means that we shall have to wait and just ask a few Questions of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. James H. Hoy: And get no answers.

Mr. Edward Evans: Or sometimes get a dusty answer. We shall have to wait until the Report is published, or until next year when these Schemes come up again, and we shall have the opportunity to make a few more circumscribed remarks. We give lip service to the gallantry of our fishermen, to the strategic value of the fleets and to their contribution to our economy.
There remain the problems of over-fishing, conservation—the Icelandic problem would, I assume, be out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, even to mention—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Evans: —although I hope, in a very mild way, to circumvent that—the discovery of new grounds, the location of

the shoals, the problem of recruitment and training and, above all, the spectre of rising costs. All these topics could, and should be discussed in a general debate on fishing, in the same way that we had the other night an excellent debate on shipbuilding and shipping generally.
It is fair to say that the industry, as a whole, would like to give up subsidies. No great industry, and certainly not such a strongly individualistic one as fishing, can possibly feel contented when it has to rely on direct Government financial support to maintain itself. This industry is not, in any sense of the word, a public utility. It is commercial and competitive, and it is a sad reflection that it has to depend on State subsidies in order to carry on its activities.
When the new subsidies were published, I was not surprised to read in the Fishing News an immediate reaction. I saw, in large type:
Cuts Made In Many White Fish Subsidies. Trawler Owners Dismayed.
The article said:
Aberdeen Trawler owners are dismayed by the cuts in the subsidy for steam trawlers, says The Scotsman. Only a very small number of the Aberdeen fleet are modern motor trawlers, and only the subsidy payment has helped to keep the older steam-driven vessels at sea.
It would be invidious, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to go into the details of the trawler problem at Aberdeen, as I see two very distinguished people, one on each side of the House, who are certainly anxious to catch your eye on this issue.
Many owners say that they cannot gamble on the ordering of expensive new trawlers when the whole industry is threatened by Icelandic and Faroese moves to close valuable fishing grounds. The cuts represent a drop in revenue of between £1,000 and £1,500 per vessel a year. With increased running expenses, owners of steam-driven trawlers will be faced with a drop of more than £2,000 in revenue per vessel in the coming year …
The same is true of Milford Haven, which is a port, if I may say so with great diffidence, that has, at last, reawakened to its responsibilities to the fishing world, and could reasonably look out for a great expansion. The cutting I have here says:
Milford will lose £30,000 by Subsidy Cuts.
These are terrible things. Those are not my figures, but figures that I have taken from a trade journal. In regard to


cuts in the steam trawlers, I find myself in some difficulty, because I well remember that when, two years ago, the subsidy on steam drifters and trawlers was raised to a very considerable amount, I stated in the House that it was a very considerable disincentive to steam trawler owners to recondition. If I were the owner of a steam vessel and were given a subsidy of £20 a day, it would take me a very long time to think of sinking capital into an oil-conditioned vessel.
The future of these vessels is by no means secure. We have the threat, and we must not minimise it, of restricted fishing for the distant water fleet, through the unilateral action of Iceland in closing some of our most fruitful sources of supply. It is estimated that the fall in catches over the whole of the country will be as much as 40 per cent. Who will suffer? Not only the trawler owners, but the merchants, the retailers, the fish friers and the consumers. Surely, it must be the aim of the Government so to strengthen the catching power of the fleets, that will now be forced far away, as to make up that loss. Therefore, it is important to maintain the catching power of the fleets even though the vessels are out of date. Many of these old vessels can still operate effectively.
Although I willingly concede the principle that we ought to try to recondition our fleets, to change from the old steam drifters and trawlers to modern vessels, particularly in regard to the accommodation of the crews which in some of the old vessels is quite disgraceful, I think that these cuts are too drastic and too sudden.
The object of the subsidy is to promote the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish. That is what the Minister said when he introduced the 1953 Bill. This has gone ahead in Lowestoft where we have the most modern fleets in the country. We took advantage of the grants and subsidies. In an adventurous way and having, fortunately, companies which had some capital behind them, we have completely reconditioned our fleets.
Other ports are not so fortunate, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members will elaborate on their difficulties. Many factors operate against the wish to rebuild. However good may be the intentions of the owner, we must remember

that there are several factors which he has to take into account. One is the terrific rise in the cost of building during the last few years. This calls for caution because it has been found, time and time again, that the cost of building a new trawler or of reconditioning an old vessel is very much greater when the work has been carried out than was originally estimated.
Another very important point was put to me by representatives of the British Trawlers Association—the fall in the price of scrap metal. It used to be said that with the money realised by the sale of three old drifters or trawlers, plus the grant, one could build a new vessel. I am now told that the price of scrap metal has fallen to such an extent that it is necessary to sell eight or nine old vessels to produce the same financial return.
An immense risk is involved, and the Government by introducing these very drastic cuts in the subsidy at this time are doing a great disservice to these old vessels. As I have said, I concede the necessity for bringing the fleets up to date. If the fleets are not working to full capacity it means that the ports are working uneconomically and that all the ancillary and auxiliary trades must suffer.
The cuts in the subsidy mean fewer ships going to sea, which, in turn, means more losses. I would have hoped that instead of making these drastic cuts the Government would have tapered off the subsidy, thus avoiding the severity of the cuts. I am sure that we on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite would wish to ask the Government to think again about the matter and to bring in something new in about six months' time.
It was the custom a few years ago to introduce these subsidy schemes every six months or so. Although I concede that such an arrangement makes for anxiety and instability, because shipbuilders and owners wish to look far ahead, I think that the Government ought to look at the matter again in the light of present trends.
The fishing fleet owner has been faced during the last three years with depleted catches and the early disappearance of the herring, and I hope the Government will have another look at this problem of the fall in the herring catches. I am convinced that this unrestricted trawling


in the North Sea where thousands of millions of young immature herrings are drawn out of the sea, not for human food but for fish meal, is a thorough disgrace to the whole industry. I understand, and I hope it is true, that the Government are taking steps to have consultations with the Governments concerned, and I hope that we shall hear something about that before the end of the debate.
There is a school of scientific thought which believes that it does not matter very much. I am sure the old skippers who have been on this job since boyhood will tell a very different story. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) looks at me. I think he holds different views, but I represent one of the major herring ports of the country. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is here and he knows that the East Anglian herring fishing industry is vital to the economy of the East Coast towns, and we do not want to see that valuable fishing going to waste.
One of our greatest problems is to fulfil our contract with Russia, and that is sadly suffering from a shortfall. That is a very attractive contract, if only we could carry it out. The English drifter owners, and I am sure the Scottish drifter owners, too, have made strong representations to the Government. I am sure that in order to maintain the drifter fleet and to ensure the full catching capacity the subsidy should be substantially increased. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) would make his swan-song here tonight by a great panegyric on the herring, but I do not see him here.
We on this side of the House, who introduced the subsidy scheme, are proud of what it has done, but in order to secure its effectiveness in the face of present conditions which are unique and extremely difficult, we urge the Government to produce an improved and amended scheme both for white fish and the herring industry as soon as possible.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I join with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) in registering my personal protest against the time that is allotted for our fishing debates, and in particular at a debate of this importance having to take place at this most unseemly hour.

I shall be very brief. There is much that I would like to say, but in fairness to the House, I do not think it is any good going into detail at this late hour.
First and foremost, so far as concerns the inshore, near-water and middle-distance white fishing vessels, we must get out of our minds the pious hope that was expressed when these subsidies were introduced that they were to be of a temporary nature to tide over a time while the fleets were to be rehabilitated, because that is just not true. The fishing industry today cannot get along without subsidies, no matter how modern the vessels may be. The quayside price for fish is too near the actual catching cost, leaving out of account the standing charges on loans to be repaid and interest rates. Gear and operating costs are still on the increase. The cost of new vessels is still going up and, as I have said before in this House, fishermen's earnings compare unfavourably with the earnings of skilled workers ashore in terms of hours worked. The answer, of course, is an equitable price for fish, but that would mean a very serious increase in the cost of living, which is something which any Government must view very carefully indeed before countenancing.
I do not know how far one would be in order in touching upon the possible curtailment of fishing grounds, but this is a consideration in making ends meet in the fishing industry. A most serious position is confronting vessels of all sizes, from the small, inshore vessels to the big trawlers, in the outlook as regards fishing grounds. Many owners have, in recent months, contracted for new vessels, on the understanding that the fishing grounds which we have enjoyed throughout history would be inviolate. With increased building costs and interest rates, these owners who have embarked upon new vessels are finding themselves out on a limb. Their position is very serious as a result of this new development. I had hoped that the Fleck Committee, at the behest of the Government, would have returned an interim report dealing with this particular matter.
It seems to me that immediate assistance should be given to those owners who find themselves involved in contracts which at the moment offer little prospect of eventual success.

Mr. George Jeger: Has the hon. Gentleman any faith that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, under its present Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, would pay any more attention to the Fleck Report than it has paid since 1951 to the Heneage Report on drainage?

Mr. Duthie: It is to be hoped that the Fleck Committee will soon report, and that its report will be acted upon immediately it is received.
There is a great deal to be said for retaining the present subsidy for coal-burners, for this reason. The present trend of affairs in the fishing industry will mean fewer contracts for new vessels until the air is clear concerning the fishing grounds. If the subsidy is reduced on the coal-burners, more fishermen will be out. We shall lose crews. It is essential, in the period of transition, that crews should be kept together as sea-going units. That could be done by the retention of the present subsidy for the coal-burners. It would, at least, go some distance to help.
As for herring, the hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned the Russian contract, but, although it is very nice to have the Russian contract, the unfortunate part about it is that the price associated with the Russian contract is debasing herring values in this country. The price attendant upon the Russian contract has gone a long way towards influencing many people to leave the herring industry. That is a fact. The prices that the Herring Industry Board could offer were based upon the Russian contract, and they have been far too low. It is to be hoped that ways and means will be found of marketing herring which will give a price more attractive to the fisherman. I do not want to go into a detailed discussion on the point, but I hold it as being absolutely true.
I come now to A and B ports. A very worthy section of the fishing industry is under a great disadvantage in this matter of A and B ports for fish meal. In an A port, the price for fish meal is 40s. a cran. In a B port it is 20s. a cran. In the whole Clyde area, there is not an A port. The herring fishermen start with that severe handicap, and it is quite wrong that this should be so. An A port should be established in the Clyde to take

the surplus herring landed there. Ullapool, too, should be an A port.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned research. Of course, this is overdue. Lots of things are happening to the plankton-bearing currents and in the movement of shoals which we know nothing about. We have heard all sorts of theories concerning the absence of herring. If those question can be answered and if the scientists can find out where the plankton-bearing currents are in the ocean, we shall have gone a long way towards finding the shoals again.
The Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association has made a perfectly good case for a 1s. a stone subsidy for gutted fish. The Scottish Herring Producers' Association has made an equally good case for increased subsidy for herring. At the present juncture I am prepared to accept the subsidies under these Schemes as a means of keeping the industry ticking over till we get the Fleck Report. I think the Fleck Report will be far reaching, and it will be up to the Government, no matter of which colour the Government may be, to pay immediate attention to that Report and implement, by action financial or otherwise, the recommendations contained in it.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: The two excellent speeches which have been made relieve me of the necessity for saying more than a very few words. On the general issue of reduction of subsidies I say only that I think we should recognise that it is desirable to arrange for scrapping of unduly old vessels, but, particularly at this time when, as has been said, there is a threat to production as a whole, we must envisage scrapping as part only of a policy of scrapping and building. There is a good deal of misgiving whether with the present arrangements there will be building. It may be that there will be scrapping, but if there is not building or if the fleet in the near water fishing has to make up certain losses in the distant waters that may be damaging to total production.
The only specific point I want to make refers to the Grimsby seiners. It may seem churlish to refer to the only section of the industry in which subsidies are going up and I think the Grimsby seiners are grateful for the improvement in the subsidy rate. Nevertheless there is a


distinction between the different classes of sailors. The point I want to make is that the owners in Grimsby certainly feel that one distinction which does obtain is not quite a rational one. The difference between those who get subsidy all the year round and those who do not get it in the summer is in money terms, a pretty big one. On the other hand, the distinction between the costs of the two classes of vessel is relatively a minor one. I hope that when the Fleck Report comes out it will rationalise what at the moment does not seem entirely rational.
The plea I would make is that the results of those two classes of boats should be kept constantly under review and that perhaps when the Fleck Committee has reported it may be possible, if subsidies are to continue at all, to have a distinction which seems more reasonable to the people concerned. It is important they should see that there is justice in the way the existing subsidies are allocated. Despite the courteous reception which they had from the Minister when they went to put their case to him, they are not satisfied that the present distinction truly represents the real difference in costs.

12.33 a.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) was quite right in feeling satisfied with the subsidy increase to the seine netting vessels, although there is a body of opinion particularly in Scotland which feels that perhaps the seine netting fleet are getting too large. We should at least thank the Government for having speeded up publication of the White Fish Authority's Report for the year, so that it is available in time for this, the first debate on the subsidies we have had. I hasten to add that is about the last thing I shall say that is satisfactory to the Government.
Last year when we discussed the question of the subsidies to steam vessels they remained stationary, and yet at the time it was considered that the problems of the fishing industry were so great that it was necessary to have an inquiry into the whole matter. I could not support the Government at that time, and nor can I now, because at this moment there are far greater uncertainties for the whole industry.
I have always thought that Aberdeen should do its best to modernise its fleet as swiftly as possible, and I am the last person to be content with the fact that we have 102 steam vessels which are over 39 years old. But Aberdeen has not done too badly in trying to modernise its fleet From 1st January, 1957, to 1st June of this year we have had 16 new vessels in the port of Aberdeen, and seven new diesel boats are to come into commission this year.
Therefore, I am not surprised that the White Fish Authority should say in page 12 of its Report:
The greatest progress during the year in new building has been in Aberdeen and in Grimsby.
It may well be that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say that there has not been enough scrapping of old vessels. Let us consider how that has come about. The Authority says that it is probably due to the higher rate of subsidy in 1956 and what it describes as some better catches.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) referred to another very practical reason, namely, the price of scrap which at present is only about one-quarter of what it was a year ago. In this country it is £6 10s. a ton. It is true that in Belgium it is £8 10s. a ton, but it takes £300 to £400 to take a ship over there to be scrapped. Other hon. Members have referred to vast increase in building costs. There is also the very practical reason that there is a limit to the rate at which new trawlers can be built. It is not every yard that will undertake such work.
Owners have no wish to run uneconomic boats. The costs agreed by the Department with the fishing industry shows that at known rates of rising costs today there will be a loss of about £2,000 per boat during the coming year, and costs which are not allowed by the Department include such matters as the increase in Aberdeen harbour dues of about £4,000, or about 80 per cent. and pay increases for net riggers and braiders, engineers and shipyard workers which affect not only the increasing costs of building but also repairs. There are also unknown factors such as the latest demands for further rises in pay by the fishermen themselves.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that it is important to have the right balance between the old vessels and the


new. I submit that in today's prevailing conditions of uncertainty the present reductions in the subsidies, particularly to the steam vessels, are really most unwise. I say this, not as an apologist to the House, from a constituency point of view, because one-sixth of the people of working age in Aberdeen are employed in the fishing industry or its ancillary trades. Whilst it is true that recent employment figures have shown a definite improvement, nevertheless we have an unemployment figure of well over 3 per cent. It is not surprising that the fishing industry as a whole should ask whether the objects of the subsidies are really being achieved.
I understand that the object was to provide a plentiful supply of prime quality fish, which I claim Aberdeen has always been able to give to its markets in the United Kingdom. The subsidies were also to be provided for a period during which the fleet tried to rebuild. I wonder whether I may have a reply to a question which I put in debate the other day—whether the terms of reference of the Fleck Committee are wide enough to include consideration of anything that may happen by way of alteration of the fishing limits off Iceland and the Faroes. While we accept that the Government are determined to ensure that our fishermen are legally protected within the twelve miles limit as from 1st September, what Aberdeen is worried about is any intention of the Danish Government or of the Faroese Parliament to extend their limits.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that you are looking rather restive, and I suspect the reason why. Therefore, I will merely hasten to say that this causes us uncertainty for 70 per cent. of Aberdeen's catch comes from the Faroes. It causes uncertainty in the minds of all those in the fishing industry in Aberdeen because of the possible effects on their livelihood. It is because of that that I would ask that, if anything unfortunate happens in the coining year, the Government should bring forward new proposals to amend these subsidies, even if it is only half way through the subsidy year. That, surely, is the least that the industry can expect.
I should like to support what the hon. Member for Lowestoft said when he drew attention to the fact that we are concerned tonight with one of the few

natural resources which this over-populated island possesses. We hear much about agriculture, but not very much about fishing, and I plead with my hon. Friend to fight the Treasury, if necessary, to ensure that the fishermen shall be given what they deserve.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am strongly of opinion that this new Scheme should be rejected and that the Government should take it back and reconsider it. There is ample time to do that, because it does not need to come into operation until 1st August. Between now and then, the Government can dwell upon the economic facts with a view to realising that it is wrong to reduce this subsidy at this time.
This Scheme purports to reduce the subsidy arbitrarily, without sufficient reason, and without adequate warning having been given, at a time when the industry is confronted with grave problems, both national and international. The House knows very well that these problems include the continuing high costs to which this industry is subject; and, so far as international matters are concerned, it has difficulties such as those arising from Iceland's attempt to fix wider territorial fishing limits. If ever there was a time—I do not know what the hon. Member opposite finds so amusing.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The only reason why I was amused was the hon. and learned Member's skilful handling of the position of Iceland without going against the rules of order.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Member comes from a fishing area I should have thought that he would have treated fishing as a very serious subject and not as a laughing matter.
I was about to say that if ever there was a time for this subsidy to be reduced, that time is not the present, especially in view of the reasons which I have advanced. This new white fish subsidy at one stroke is an attack on the various ships of the Aberdeen fishing industry, on ship-owners, officers and crews, on the fish market workers, and the consumers.
This is not the time for the subsidy to be reduced. On the contrary, I ask the Government to take back the Scheme and in a new Scheme not only maintain the subsidy as at present, but consider the good case which could be made out for


increasing it. Having regard to the lateness of the hour and the arguments already advanced, I shall not go into details, but I wish to put the case in a general way and I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider this prejudicial Scheme, take it back and produce a better one more helpful to this essential industry.
I join with those hon. Members who have protested at this debate coming on at this late hour. There should be some system of priorities in these matters. What would the House think if colonial or international matters came on at this time, a quarter to one in the morning, after a long day when hon. Members are fatigued after doing their legislative work all day? It is entirely wrong for the Government to do this, as they have done again and again. They should have some respect for the fishing industry and see that its problems are discussed in detail at a proper hour of the day.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I will try to be as brief as possible as there have been many speeches which have more or less covered the subject. The Government have not been very popular tonight and I trust that they are taking some notice of what is being said. I want to add my protest against the fact that, as far as my memory serves me, this is the first time this year that we have been able to discuss the fishing industry and this, as has already been said, at quarter to one on a Thursday morning.
This is a very important industry and part of our food supply. It is part of our defences in war, and to have this measure of time to discuss an industry of this importance is something about which we must protest. I trust that the Government will take some notice of that protest.
In introducing the Schemes, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary focused attention by saying that the subsidies could not be maintained for ever. He gave the impression that the subsidies were related to the modernisation of the fleets and so forth and that ultimately—and it may well be not so ultimately—they would be whittled away. He gave the impression that he hoped that this would not take too long. If my hon. Friend is thinking that, he is deluding himself,

because in the inshore fishing industry—and it is to that that the Schemes largely relate—it is extremely unlikely in present conditions that that will happen. I hope that my hon. Friend realises that.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) gave the impression, I am sure unintentionally, that all subsidies were being reduced. That is wrong, because for a goodly proportion of the inshore fishing industry the status quo will continue. We must be clear about that. Consequently, whatever one might feel about certain reductions provided for in the Scheme, one can hardly contemplate voting against it, because to do so would be to vote against the very subsidies which are the mainstay of the fishing fleets at the present time.
Anxieties have already been referred to by nearly every hon. Member in reference to a certain island, which I will not mention again because it does not actually come within the terms of the Scheme. Nevertheless, it affects the Scheme in a way, because it is from the anxieties arising in respect of this island that we might find a certain retardation in the industry, which, in turn, might lead to a loss in the industry, because of which subsidies might have to be supported. Consequently the one is not altogether unrelated to the other.
I would draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 16 of the Scheme—which restates the subsidies which will apply specially to the inshore fishing industry—especially on the question of the subsidy of 8d. per stone for pilchards. The pilchard industry is of very great concern to the part of the world in which I live, and which I have the honour to represent. No doubt the Minister is aware that one of the reasons for the subsidy is the fact that fishing fleets are not able wholly to maintain themselves. One of the reasons why they are not able to do so is that the facilities for dealing with the catches, and the quantity of catch, from time to time, are not there. The Minister knows that, and knows quite well that the White Fish Authority is studying that problem from the point of view of its long-term policy.
It is not the future policy that I am worried about; the Scheme applies not to the future policy but to the present one, and it is the present policy that I


am dealing with. I hope that the Minister will remember that one cannot go on for ever producing good policies for the future which may not be capable of being applied to the present.
My last point is purely factual. Mention has been made of the cost of subsidies, and so forth, and members have mentioned the reductions taking place in respect of coal-burning vessels. I wonder if the Minister would be kind enough to inform the House what is the estimated difference in the cost to the Treasury, comparing this year with last year. If we could be told that it would at least give us some idea what the reductions are, and what kind of figure the Minister is dealing with.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I do not know what the last question was meant to do, because there are changes in subsidies for different sections of the industry. While some sections may be getting increases there will be serious reductions for an important part of the industry.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member says he does not understand what the question was meant to do. It was put purely in order to get a figure of the estimated difference in cost to the Treasury, comparing this year with last year. Figures are interesting when they relate to costs.

Mr. Hoy: I still do not see anything in that question. No matter whether the total moves up or down, for a considerable part of the Scottish fleet the Scheme spells very difficult times.
We have heard a lot tonight about the reasons for the reductions in subsidies in respect of building of new boats. I would remind the House that on both the previous occasions when the Minister presented new Schemes, in 1956 and 1957, he said that one good reason for the less speedy building of boats was that the yards could not accept more orders. He said that the output of the yards was the limiting factor in the production of new vessels. Let us have no more nonsense about it. That was the one thing which restricted the new vessels coming into operation. It should also be remembered that even in 1956 the Minister said that because of this all these old coal-burners had to be kept going, as we had to have

a balanced fleet, to provide the fish that the nation required. These were the factors which were operating.
Although in 1956 he increased the subsidies and defended them, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the increased subsidies were in no way getting out of step with increased costs. He said that the industry was having to put up with increased costs in all directions. Do not let us pretend that those engaged in the industry were making increased profits. They were doing nothing of the kind. In 1957 the Minister said:
In the past four years about half the coal-burners have been withdrawn and new vessels have been built as fast as the yards have been able to turn them out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 740.]
It is no use the Joint Parliamentary Secretary complaining that they have not been coming out fast enough. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the vessels were being produced as fast as the yards could turn them out. It is no use the Joint Parliamentary Secretary saying tonight that the industry has not been playing its part in this matter.

Mr. Godber: The only point I was making was that in the year referred to by my right hon. Friend over 100 vessels had gone out. In this year the figure is only about 50. It is a significant difference which I was entitled to bring to the notice of the House.

Mr. Hoy: But the hon. Gentleman has no right to deal with the matter as if it were the fault of the industry. I will tell him one or two of the contributing factors.
It was on 25th July last year that we discussed these subsidies which came into operation on 1st August. The hon. Gentleman will not forget that in the following month the then Chancellor imposed cuts. He said that we had to restrict credit and he put up the Bank Rate to 7 per cent. He made it economically impossible for people to enter into new contracts. No hon. Member will deny that. Because these conditions were created, it is a little paltry for the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "Because we imposed these cuts, you were unable to do the job, and because you were unable to do the job, we are going to cut the subsidy."
No hon. Member would argue that we should continue to use the coal burners any longer than is necessary, but let us be candid, and say that in present circumstances we cannot do without them. We shall not get rid of them by the present policy of the Government.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the case regarding Scotland. Last year, when he was presenting similar subsidies the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the one great difficulty he foresaw was the position of Scotland. There would be difficulties, he said, because of transport charges and different methods of fishing. I was surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he was able to differentiate between certain types of seiners regarding subsidy. When, last year, I suggested to him that they might differentiate, he said that they could not possibly differentiate between one port and another, but that has not prevented him bringing in a different subsidy for four vessels—so he has wiped out that argument altogether.
Last year the Chancellor said that it might be that in Scotland, as a result of these workings, we might have to try some new type of vessel. Let me say that, in Scotland, it does not pay even with the new vessels. In my own port, even with seven new vessels last year, the certified losses were nearly £12,000—and that did not include the exorbitant interest charged for the loans. Every hon. Member knows that the charges have nearly doubled since this Government came into power. These losses have been incurred because of the cuts in the subsidy. Even on the old steam vessels, which still trade from my port, the present cuts will add about £22,500 to the £100,000 or so that they lost last year. This does not give them much courage to rebuild.
As I say, the Chancellor said that perhaps in Scotland they would have to adopt a new type of vessel. That may be so, but we were fobbed off last year with the story of the Fleck Committee. I must say that the Government have not waited on the Fleck Committee Report before cutting the subsidies. In Scotland we find that even the building of new boats is not encouraged.
As I have said before, I have in my constituency one of the most progressive

trawler owners in the business—Mr. Croans. He has gone in for a new boat—building a smaller type of vessel—and, if I might say so in the presence of one or two hon. Members opposite from the North of England, we had a delegation from Tynemouth to Berwick the other day to look at this new vessel, in order to see if it might help them to overcome their difficulties.
Mr. Croans has had little encouragement. He writes to me:
I have been in touch with the local Fishing Officer and would confirm that while the new class of vessel which I am building at Berwick, while trawling for white fish, qualifies for subsidy at the rate of £5 per day, whereas, had this class of vessel gone to the herring fishing or seine net, she would have qualified for subsidy at the rate of £6 10s. per day".
It seems nonsense that people showing such enterprise should get this sort of rebuff from the Treasury, and I suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary is in earnest he should tackle this problem, even now, and see that these people, in common fairness, get what is being paid to other sections of the industry.
Perhaps I might also suggest that he gives consideration to building these vessels to a pattern—say, in three sizes. Today, new trawlers cost over £1,000 a foot to build. That is an awful lot of money. If three patterns could be established, we might be able to have a much more economical building of boats, and make it possible for even the small owner to undertake new boat building. It is all the things I have mentioned that prevent rebuilding taking place.
The Parliamentary Secretary is wrong, once again, about the scrapping and replacement of vessels. In Scotland, with the exception of 1956, the number of vessels scrapped last year was the highest on record. His figures were really misleading for Scotland.
I think we can sum up the matter by saying that, as far as we are concerned, the earning power of the new vessels is not sufficiently attractive. Secondly, as has been mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), the tremendous fall in the price of scrap has added enormously to their difficulties. If my figures are right, they bear out very much what the hon. Lady said. We cannot expect owners to scrap their old vessels at that price.
Certainly as far as the Scottish Office is concerned, the Joint Under-Secretary who, I presume, is to reply to the debate tonight, has to face this problem of Scotland's fishing fleets which the Chancellor said last year was quite different from that in other parts of the country.
In conclusion, I would say to the Minister that if he is really in earnest about this matter he must treat the industry seriously. We cannot expect people outside to treat it seriously if the Government think that one o'clock in the morning is the right time at which to discuss the matter. Altogether, the matter has been badly handled. It will give no encouragement to those in the industry. It certainly does not provide for the enterprise shown by certain people in my own constituency, and we can only hope that the Government will think again about the matter.

1.7 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish, first of all, to add my objections to the fact that we have to debate this very important industry at this time of night. It always happens that we have to do this late at night. I cannot help feeling, and I say this with very great respect to the Scottish Members who themselves have had a pretty good field day today, that we might have debated the subsidy Schemes as the first part of today's business rather than as the last part.
I have always thought that the Minister realises that it is to his advantage, if not to the advantage of the fishing industry, of which he has a great deal to say in favour, that we should debate the matter at this time of night, because there are very few Members in the House, there is very little interest taken by the Press and very little interest taken also by the public.
There are very few Ministers present. I should have thought that when there are such tremendous difficulties facing the fishing industry as a whole it would have been better to have had a full Front Bench rather than just a few Ministers who are anxious to get these Schemes through the House. There is, of course, another complication. The fact is that whenever we discuss subsidies the contributions that we can make are very limited indeed because we are never able to discuss the wider implications. There are some very wide implications today.
The British Trawler Owners' Federation very properly drew attention in its statement to the fact that nearly every fishing port in the Kingdom has a different problem and that it is extremely difficult to put forward all the problems relating to each port. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food addresses his mind to the whole question of subsidies in making a general statement which does not give us an opportunity to discuss the individual problems of the different ports.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) referred to the difficulties of the fishing port of North Shields. That port has a familiar problem of its own because it is the only fishing port in the country where the fish quay is owned by the local authority.
In order to try to encourage the building up of an economic and efficient fishing fleet from North Shields, the local authority has put a large sum of money into the improvement, modernisation and expansion of the fish quay. The Parliamentary Secretary does not make any general reference to the problems of a fishing port like mine. He just talks about the matter in general, and my local authority as well as those directly interested in the fishing industry are very concerned about the future of the fishing port of North Shields.
It is very important to have a balanced fishing fleet; nobody would deny that, but it is equally important from the point of view of the national interest to ensure that there is an efficient fishing fleet in every port because so much depends on having a fleet from the point of view of national defence and the like.
I am not going to continue arguing at this late hour, but I should like to say, as I know those who are interested in the fishing industry in my part of the world would like me to say, that they do not think that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes nearly enough interest in problems of fishing as a whole. They feel that very strongly indeed, and I can only hope that on the next occasion when the hon. Gentleman comes to the House to discuss fishing matters the debate will take place at a proper time of day. I shall then be able to invite representatives of my local authority to come into the Public Gallery,


and although they will not be able to intervene in the debate, they can at least listen to me intervening and trying to prod the Parliamentary Secretary into paying a little more attention to the needs of the fishing port of North Shields.
I am profoundly disappointed that we never have an opportunity of discussing this very important matter at a proper time. Above all, it seems most extraordinary that when fishing interests are facing one of the greatest problems that they have had to face for many years, this should be the moment when the Parliamentary Secretary should seek to add to their anxieties.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. George Jeger: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has certainly been having a rough time. I wish to add my voice to those who have protested that one o'clock in the morning is not the proper time for discussion of this important subject. The Parliamentary Secretary must be very pleased indeed that there is such a small number of hon. Members present. If everyone who has spoken so far—and I think mine is the ninth or tenth speech on this subject—has been so unanimous in attacking these Schemes, it should surely give the Parliamentary Secretary something to think about and should cause him to rise shortly and say that he agrees with the unanimous view of this House, even at such a late hour, and that he is prepared to withdraw these Schemes for further consideration. He cannot ignore the unanimous view of the House.
Not one of the speeches which have been made from both sides of the House has been in favour of these Schemes. We are precluded from voting against them—the hon. Gentleman knows that very well—because of the implications of the subsidy involved in this subject. Consequently, he is secure in the knowledge that we shall not vote against them. That is a form of political blackmail. One cannot, at the same time, legislate in accordance with those principles and expect to have satisfaction or contentment in the industry for which one is legislating.
The speeding up of the scrapping of the older vessels in the fishing industry will mean huge losses to the owners. Present scrap prices mean that they will

receive merely give-away prices for what they are disposing of. Unless we have a balanced production of new trawlers side by side with the scrapping of the old, we shall, obviously, have a smaller fishing fleet. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has paid more than glib attention to his own words when he spoke about this being a transition scheme in a transition period. For how long is it to be a transition period? When does it start, for how long does it go on, and when does it finish?
A transition period does not finish merely for the doctrinaire reason that the Parliamentary Secretary is, perhaps, opposed in principle to subsidies and, therefore, thinks that, the quicker he can get rid of a subsidy, the better it will be, for political reasons. As has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House who are intimately connected with the fishing industry, a subsidy is vital if the industry is to survive. This is, indeed, a transition period. It is a transition period not merely in disposing of old vessels and providng new ones, but it is a transition period in the industry itself, because there is so much uncertainty about its future.
The shadow of future fishing and in what waters that fishing will be done has been hanging over the debate, although any mention of the problem in detail or a discussion of the Icelandic situation would be out of order. The shadow is over this debate, and undoubtedly it hangs over the industry as a whole. It hangs over the trawler owners when they are considering whether they should invest their money in new boats or whether they should try to make do with what they have for a little longer until the situation becomes clearer.
The future of the fishing industry affects not only the trawler owners. It affects the crews concerned. They are in a state of uncertainty. Trained men, once they are dispersed, once they are dissatisfied with the prospects of their industry and go into some other work, are hard to replace. They are hard to attract back into the industry. Training takes time. If the fishing fleet is to be left in this state of uncertainty, if those concerned in it feel that they will have to put up with greater losses, and they have no certainty that they can recover the trained crews who have been operating


the vessels after they have gone to seek work elsewhere, the future will be very dark indeed.
We have heard figures of the losses—anything from £1,000 to £1,500 a year drop in revenue, increasing the losses and, perhaps, making the difference between a small profit and a loss. If the new vessels are built, if there is a reversal of policy or, perhaps, a change in the general attitude towards the industry or a change in its general situation, it will take a very long time indeed to train new crews for the purpose. Skilled crews will be difficult to replace.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter and realise that this proposal, although it may be a very good one in theory, to speed up the scrapping of old vessels and introduce a more modern fishing fleet, is ill timed and inopportune. The reduction of the subsidy at this particular moment is certainly premature. I cannot see why the situation cannot be left as it is for the time being. We know that the Fleck Committee has been appointed and we await its Report. I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has so little faith in its Report that he is acting before it is issued and published. I know there are various preliminary views which have been expressed, but why not await publication of the full Report? Why not await the Fleck Report which has been talked about so long and which we have not yet seen, and then gauge whether the industry requires a thorough reorganisation, perhaps along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, with standardisation of certain patterns of trawlers and so on, in order that the industry may know where it is and be organised on a scientific basis?
I referred in an interruption a little earlier to the fact that the Heneage Report on drainage, which is an important one in agricultural circles, has been shelved for the last seven years. I hope that that is not to happen to the Fleck Report, but I have my doubts when the Parliamentary Secretary himself airily dismisses the Fleck Report and introduces to us at this late hour these Schemes which disregard completely whatever suggestions may be made by the Fleck Committee. I would urge him to take into consideration the unanimous view that he should withdraw these Schemes so that we may await the Report and then

consider a much better proposal for the reorganisation of the fishing fleet at some future time.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) has referred to the volume of criticism of the cuts in subsidies, but the House must realise the reason for the cuts. This subsidy is a temporary measure to tide the industry over the transference from the old steam to modern motor vessels and is due to end about 1961 or, if it is prolonged by the House, at the latest by 1963. Surely it is reasonable to tail off the subsidies as we approach the 'sixties?
The nub of the problem is the ratio of the scrapping of old steam vessels to the replacement with modern motor vessels. I think I am right in saying that during the last three years well over 50 per cent. of the steam vessels have been scrapped but the replacement with modern vessels is under 50 per cent. We must remember that even the reduced number of steam vessels still land 12½ per cent. of the total white fish brought to this country. Therefore, they are still fulfilling an important function.
The cuts in the subsidies will, I believe, result in a reduction of about £1,000 or £1,500 per year per vessel. That will greatly increase the scrapping of steam vessels. My hon. Friend said he would accept that because the more efficient motor vessels will keep up the general level of catches and so the housewives will not go short of fish. I suggest to him that the danger lies not in increasing the scrapping of steam vessels but the slow replacement by modern vessels. There are three reasons for this. One is the high costs of replacements. The second is the fall in the price of scrap. To recover the cost of one new vessel one must scrap nine old ones now, whereas some years ago the ratio was three. The third reason is the uncertainty over international fishing limits.
I agree with the hon. Member for Goole that it seems extremely dangerous to be faced with a run-down in the total numbers of the fishing fleet due to increased scrapping of steam vessels and to reduced replacement with modern vessels before we get the Fleck Report. I hope the Minister will deal with this problem when he winds up, as it is one


which greatly concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the fishing industry.
Distant-water vessels do not have a subsidy, but if international action is taken which reduces their catching capacity by 40 or 50 per cent. then indeed the distant-water fleet which glories in its independence may join the queue for subsidies. I hope this thought will add strength to the elbow of the Minister when dealing with the Icelandic Government.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I do not wish to detain the House for long at this late hour. I am glad to see the Patronage Secretary is here. I would add my word to help persuade him that there would be no need to detain the House late if we could have a debate on the fishing industry at a reasonable time of day.
The theme of the debate has been the appalling difficulties which face the industry now. There is the question of base lines and fish concentrations about which we are not entitled to speak under the rules of order. It is quite wrong, therefore, that at this time of grave anxiety in the fishing industry this should be our sole chance, once a year, in a limited form of debate tied down by Standing Orders.
Article 13 of the White Fish Scheme refers to the days of departure and arrival of vessels being reckoned as days at sea. There are difficulties and anomalies about insurance in the fishing industry in connection with this matter which the Fleck Committee should take up very carefully. There are anomalies between port and port, and through the Fisheries Organisation Society, of which I am a governor, I have asked that evidence be submitted to the Fleck Committee, which should deal with the matter. The anomalies should be ironed out and the difficulties put right. Registration is a difficult and complex matter. It is time that the regulations governing it were altered.
Article 13 (b) states that days spent at a port other than that at which a catch is landed should be excluded from the reckoning of days spent at sea. Does that mean that if a small boat has to go into port in bad weather the time spent there is not to count? It is a little unfair that

a day on which such a vessel is away from its home port should not count.
What does Article 14 mean? It provides that
No grant shall be payable in respect of a voyage if the proceeds from the sale of white fish taken on that voyage amount to less than half the gross proceeds of that voyage.
I do not understand what it is considered they would be doing other than catching fish. I hope that we can have an elaboration of that point.
I know that at the moment the Government's views cannot be stated. I know that this is an extremely difficult time in international relations, bearing in mind what is going on and may go on in the matter of plans for future conferences, but we really must have an opportunity for proper debate on this subject. A very large section of a large and important industry is vitally concerned. It is not good enough to have only an hour's debate at about 1.30 a.m. to discuss an industry which is so vital to the country.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: We are well into the second hour after midnight and therefore I propose to do little more than support what has been said about the herring industry by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and others. If I were to say anything about the problems of Great Yarmouth it would take at least half an hour. Quite apart from the fact that all sorts of people's eyes are upon me, which is slightly "off-putting"—

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend should not worry.

Mr. Fell: —and quite apart from the fact that one is conscious of keeping many people out of their beds, it is certainly true that it is quite impossible for any Parliamentary Secretary, be he a superman, to work from nine or ten o'clock in the morning until two o'clock the following morning and be really sensible at that hour. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has been attacked unfairly on a number of occasions tonight. I add my voice to those others who have attacked him, but only in the sense that they have asked him to consult with his right hon. and hon. Friends—even with the Patronage Secretary, if necessary—in order that we may


get something done about having a decent debate on the whole question of this industry. If the industry were in an easy state I do not think it would matter if it was debated at six o'clock in the morning. But it is not in an easy state; it is in a very serious state and I suggest that we should have a full debate and that we should have it fairly soon.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: We have all enjoyed ourselves tremendously on the subject of the time at which this debate is being held, and as a member of the union of Parliamentary Secretaries and ex-Parliamentary Secretaries, I object most strongly to the fact all the bricks seem to have been dropped on the head of the Parliamentary Secretary, when they should have been aimed at the heads of others; perhaps, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has a habit of doing, on the head of the Patronage Secretary. It is he who must accept responsibility for the fact that time after time this industry has to be discussed at this sort of hour.
I believe that it is quite wrong for an industry of this importance to be dealt with at this hour in the morning. It could surely be so arranged that this industry could have a reasonable time allotted for discussion; full discussion, and not something limited to the field offered by Schemes of this type. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that all the rest of the responsible Ministers in the Government should give some consideration not only to arranging for the debating of matters of this sort, but for seeing that reasonable time is given so that hon. Members with deep constituency interests may debate the subject at a reasonable hour.
To turn to the Schemes, it seems that they are, in fact, designed sharply to increase the scrapping of the old steam vessels. That seems to be the purpose in the alterations in the amount of subsidy. I do not think that any hon. Member who has spoken tonight has suggested that they would disagree with the Government's intention to secure the modernisation of our fishing fleets. The White Fish Authority does, and I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) in welcoming the fact that we are debating

these Schemes with the Authority's Report before us. I am also glad that it took some notice of her recommendations when we discussed the industry last year.
But the Authority has admitted frankly that the near and middle water fleet is predominantly an old fleet. Nearly three-fifths of it consists of coal burners of an average age of more than forty years.
It is not merely that they are uneconomic vessels which worries me. It is the fact that so many of them are sea slums, not fit for men to go to sea in. We have had reports from responsible authorities and medical officers of health from the ports to indicate that men going to sea in these things are subject to diseases to which they would not be subject if they went to sea in modern vessels. That is an important consideration for the House to note and for the Government to continue to act upon.
Having said that, we have to consider whether in all the prevailing circumstances the Minister is acting fairly and wisely in trying, through the reduction in the rate of subsidy on the steam vessels, to speed up the scrapping policy and the rebuilding of our fleet. "In all the prevailing circumstances" are the operative words.
The then Parliamentary Secretary, speaking of the near and middle waiter craft, said on 23rd July, 1953:
… it is among those that the serious problem exists, and it is there that we are most urgently concerned with getting large-scale rebuilding. We are aiming at rebuilding something like 500 vessels over the next 10 years, so we must hope for something in the region of 50 new boats a year. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 742–3.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) wisely said, 50 new boats a year depends on the capacity of the yards. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the Minister of Agriculture, said on 18th July, 1956:
These new vessels are being built as fast as the building yards can turn them out. But even so only about 30 boats are being built a year; so the capacity of the building yards for the present seems to be deciding the speed at which the fleet can be replaced. The total fleet now is about 590 vessels and, of these, 433 are steam vessels. We have had it in mind all along that there should be a ten-year programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 1267.]


At the Minister's estimate of building capacity, it would take some fourteen years from the date of his statement to replace the steam vessels in the near and middle waters fleets by modern vessels.
Added to the difficulty of building capacity, there are the effects, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South, of the drop in the price of scrap. That drop is making it much more difficult for the owners to scrap vessels and, with the help of the subsidy, replace them with new ones. The old figure was three to one, but I gather that it is now nine to one, an owner has to scrap nine old vessels in order to build one new. That makes it virtually impossible for owners to replace their fleets.
Another factor is that owners' costs have continued to mount, especially with the old steam vessels. That is the equivalent of a subsidy cut and the Government ought not to have added a subsidy decrease to the increases in costs which have continued throughout the period. As everyone knows, costs have risen sharply.
To that must be added another factor mentioned tonight. There has been a sharp increase in rates of interest. That adds to the difficulties and it is within the control of the Government and should have been taken into consideration by the Minister in framing these Schemes. This was one of the factors which must have counted. Added to that, the cost of building has increased enormously. Without straying outside the bounds of order I must say that, added to all those difficulties, the owners are bound to think in terms of the threat hanging over them from Iceland and other countries which are proposing an extension of their territorial waters, to the disadvantage of our fishing fleet.
All this boils down to the fact that the Minister is trying too rapidly to force out of production coal-burning vessels by means of this cut in subsidy. Unless we are every careful the people of this country will be very short of fish, and we cannot afford a shortage of this very valuable and vital food. First-class men engaged in the industry might be facing unemployment as a result of this speeding up in the scrapping of steam vessels by this means.
Finally, I would stress a point made by a number of hon. Members. Surely we ought to have awaited the Report of the Fleck Committee before taking action of this sort. That Committee was set up by the Government, and its terms of reference were
To assess, in relation to the developments in fishing and the marketing of fish, the size and pattern, and implications, of an economic fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
The Government have set up this Committee, but they are not waiting for its Report before taking this action. Here is a Committee which may be able to advise them as to the sort of fleet we want in order best to serve this country, but, having set it up, the Government take this sort of action. They are not being fair to the Committee in taking that action, any more than they were fair to the Cambridge Committee in proceeding with rents under the Agriculture Bill recently, without waiting for the Report of the Committee which they had set up to look into the very problem of rents in the agricultural industry.
I end by joining other hon. Members in protesting at the decision that the Government have taken to cut the subsidy for steam vessels without thoroughly going into all the implications of such an action. I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to take this Scheme back, or, if he will not do that, to consider it afresh, within the six months suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, having regard to all the factors which have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

1.44 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) was good enough to express sympathy for the Minister who had to wind up the debate at this late hour. In spite of his suggestion that I might be feeling a little too run down to wind up the debate properly, I shall do my best. I think that the House will acquit me of ever trying to skip my answers to a debate. I have always tried to answer every question that I have been asked, but on this occasion, although I shall do my best to answer the main points, I shall deal with those which I do not answer by way of correspondence, if I may. There are one or two detailed questions—such as those


asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard)—which I should like to go into and let him have the answers later.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) pleaded for us to keep up the catching power of the fleet. At least part of the answer to him and to his question, which seemed to imply that we were not doing so, is that the volume of the catch was higher in 1957 than in 1953. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) asked an important question about an A port for Clyde fishermen. It is the fact that the Clyde fishermen have done better out of the new subsidy than they would have done with the old oil and meal subsidy.
The noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) reminded us that there are far greater uncertainties at the moment than ever before; from which she deduced that the present reductions in subsidies are most unwise. I do not wish to minimise the uncertainties, it would be wrong to do so. But might not it be that the greater the uncertainties, the more it is necessary to go ahead with modernising and aiming at maximum efficiency in the shortest possible time? That is what lies behind our policy, parts of which have been criticised tonight. The noble Lady also asked a question about the terms of the Fleck Committee. Those terms are
To assess, in relation to developments in fishing and the marketing of fish, the size and pattern, and implications …
etc. Therefore, they must be able to take note of any developments during the course of the Committee's sittings.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) asked for comparative figures of subsidies for this year and next year. The figures are £3,154,000 on the one hand and £2,701,000 on the other, a difference of £453,000. Those are the overall figures. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) dwelt on what he called the particular difficulties of Scotland. Those are what the Fleck Committee was set up to examine and to make recommendations about. There is no secret about the fact that it was the particular difficulties of Scotland which were foremost in the mind of the Government when they decided to set up that Committee.
The hon. Member made a number of allegations against the Government which

he sought to support by a good many figures. I should like to examine the points he raised and communicate with him later. Meanwhile, I assure him that he need have no qualms about whether the Government are treating the industry seriously. Of course they are.

Mr. Hoy: I do not object to the noble Lord saying that he will reply to me by letter, but if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT of debate last year, he will see that he made a similar promise then. I have been waiting a long time for a letter and it has not arrived yet.

Lord John Hope: I think the hon. Gentleman's memory must he at fault. If it is not, all I can say is that I am not sure that he does what he conceives to be his duty in waiting a whole year before telling us that we have not answered a letter—but that we can go into.
In conclusion, may I say just three things. First, it should be remembered—because, after all, we all want to take a balanced view of the pros and cons of this matter—that the total United Kingdom white fish catch from the near, middle and inshore waters has increased from 6·4 million cwt. in 1953 to 7·1 million cwt. in 1957.
Secondly, I think that the anxieties behind many hon. Members' speeches tonight have proved, if proof were needed, the wisdom of setting up the Fleck Committee. Thirdly, and finally, perhaps I might make just one point about the factors which lie behind the decisions we have to take, as a Government, on these matters every year. The Icelandic problem has not figured in our present assessment of subsidy needs for the inshore, near and middle water and herring fleets.
Almost all the fishing at Iceland is carried on by the distant-water fleet, which gets no subsidy at all. In any case, the subsidy determinations are necessarily based on known facts, such as the performance of the fleets over the past year and current movements of costs, and not on hypotheses such as we would be dealing with in the Icelandic fishery limits problem. In that connection, of course, we, as a Government stand firmly by our declaration of 4th June—

Mr. Edward Evans: In view of what the noble Lord has said, would he undertake to review these subsidies, and come back in six months?

Lord John Hope: I do not think that any such specific undertaking could be given, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole situation is being, and will be, watched very carefully during the whole of this time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1958, dated 3rd July, 1958, a copy

of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1958, dated 3rd July, 1958 [copy laid before the House, 7th July], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.